Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Apprentices

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many indentured apprentices were registered on 1 January each year for the past 20 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): The labour force survey showed that there were 352,000 apprentices in Great Britain in spring 1990 compared with 367,000 in spring 1979 when the data were first collected, but it must be recognised that apprenticeships are only part of the system of delivering vocational training. Youth training, for example, currently provides training for 350,000 young people, compared with only 6,000 in 1979. Most of these are in addition to the number of apprentices.

Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that so many apprentices are still indentured in Britain, contrary to the generally held view that the numbers have declined rapidly. I commend to my hon. Friend the furniture industry for its new and imaginative scheme for trainees in that industry, in which skill has a pre-eminent position. Would not it be even better if we reviewed the way in which education and training are still divided unnaturally by the school leaving age of 16? That would allow even more young people to take advantage of the excellent training available in the furniture industry.

Mr. Jackson: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the furniture industry on what sounds an excellent scheme. I hope to have an opportunity to see something of it at first hand. The whole House is beginning to recognise the success of youth training. It has brought into training hundreds of thousands of young people who would not previously have been trained. That is surely a fact that can be accepted. Youth training is improving the quality of training by shifting the focus from the time served to the acquisition of relevant competences, and it is delivering qualifications. According to the latest figures, 69 per cent. of those who complete youth training acquire qualifications. That is an impressive result.

Mr. Beggs: Would the Under-Secretary of State like to comment on the observation that is made from time to time that our European partners devote much more of their national resources to education and training? Perhaps he would comment on how we stand in the league table.

Mr. Jackson: International comparisons are complex and difficult, but comparisons show that, on the education side, we are one of the high spenders, and that, on the training side, the Government are one of the highest spenders. It is not true that we invest less than other countries in education and training. There may be questions about the effectiveness with which, in the past, we have invested in education and training. We are pursuing that matter actively. When answering my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), I should have added that we are looking into a review such as he suggested. Only last Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced a White Paper on the subject.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he wants to have a reasonable number of apprentices in the construction industry, he will have to keep the Construction Industry Training Board as a statutory organisation, whether he wants it or not?

Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, only the other day we debated an order on the levy for the Construction Industry Training Board. We are continuing to sustain the board. We had a rather equivocal debate with the Opposition, in which I believe my hon. Friend took part.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister confirm that the number of apprenticeships in manufacturing industries in Britain has declined by two thirds during the lifetime of the Government? Is not that further evidence of the skills gap between Britain and other countries and further confirmation of the point made last week by the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he admitted that Britain still lags behind our competitors in the participation of school leavers in both education and training? Were not the Secretary of State's words simply a condemnation of the Government's record and an indication of their failure in both education and training?

Mr. Jackson: The proportion of our young people who stay on in full-time education beyond 16 is relatively low, but it has improved substantially since the Labour party was last in office. I simply cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not have a breakdown of apprentices by sector of manufacturing industry. I shall certainly look into that and come back to the hon. Gentleman. Over the past 10 years there has been a phenomenal increase in the productivity of manufacturing industry. That must be taken into account.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils are now fully operational; and how many more will be so in the next two years.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in England and Wales are now in place, with 51 fully operational. I expect a further 20 or so to become operational on 2 April and the remainder later this year, nearly two years ahead of schedule.

Mr. Cran: The Government have certainly demonstrated their commitment to training, as is evidenced by the


fact that the training budget has increased two and a half times in real terms since the time of the last Labour Government. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the employer has the primary responsibility for training, and may we be assured that there will be no dilution in the employer role from the point of view of the leadership of TECs? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to tackle the minority of employers who continue to think that training is expendable in a downturn, which is exactly the opposite of the view that is taken by our competitors?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the crucial role played by employers in training. Employers are currently investing more than £20 billion in training. We recognise the importance of their role in the lead that we have given them in training and enterprise councils. I am not sure that my hon. Friend need be quite so pessimistic about the current intentions of employers. Latest surveys estimate that between four and six times as many employers intend to maintain or increase their investment in training as intend to reduce it.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State accept from me, who served his time in a five-year apprenticeship as a fitter and turner, that the present methods of youth training have absolutely nothing in common with what the young people in this country used to receive in the days of proper apprenticeships? Is he aware that the figures that the Under-Secretary of State gave in answer to a supplementary question on Question I had nothing to do with indentured apprentices because the indenturing of apprentices has virtually disappeared from Great Britain?

Mr. Howard: Youth training is, for the most part, far superior to the kind of training to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Youth training is not simply a question of time serving. It is increasingly a question of gaining qualifications, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when dealing with Question 1—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will tell the House from the Opposition Front Bench whether the kind of reaction that we are seeing from his hon. Friends behind him to youth training represents the official position of the Labour party.

Mr. Franks: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the announcement last week of up to 5,500 job losses in the shipyards at Barrow. That followed the announcement of 2,000 job losses at the end of last year. Will he consider what initiatives his Department can take, particularly by way of extra funding for Cumbria, TEC, with emphasis on training and retraining?

Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. Friend is working very hard indeed to help his constituents. He has asked for a meeting with me and I look forward to seeing him in the near future and to discussing with him the ways in which we can help.

Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now admit, as he must, that not only is he presiding over the fastest rising unemployment anywhere in western Europe but that in last week's Budget he secured not a penny piece more for the training and enterprise councils, which face massive cuts in training for the unemployed? What went wrong with his Budget submission? Did he never ask for more money or was it that, when he did, he

was told that throwing a lifeline to the Tory party over the poll tax mattered more than giving hope to the unemployed whom the Tories have created?

Mr. Howard: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has a little more to learn about Budgets and their relationship with public expenditure. The Budget announced an important tax relief on training, which I would have hoped, if Opposition Members were serious about training, they would warmly welcome, in addition to the £120 million extra for employment training which I announced the last time I answered questions in the House.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May we be assured that chambers of commerce are being adequately consulted in the work context?

Mr. Howard: Yes. For the most part, chambers of commerce are working closely with training and enterprise councils. They have an important role to play. Indeed, in many cases the people who are in the lead in running training and enterprise councils come from the chamber of commerce movement.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people residing in the employment areas of South Yorkshire are in full-time employment; what proportion of the population this figure represents; and what is the national average.

Mr. Jackson: Information on employment according to the place of residence of the employees can only be obtained, for local areas, from the 1981 census of population. Data according to the place of work are available from the census of employment. In September 1987 there were 325,000 employees in full-time employment in the county of South Yorkshire, who represented 54·4 per cent. of the estimated work force and compared with a figure of 59·7 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Hardy: Do not those statistics reveal the farce of the Government's calculations that show that South Yorkshire is more well-to-do than even the richest areas of south-east England? Does the Minister accept that our position has gravely deteriorated since the 1981 census? Will he therefore ensure that, for areas such as South Yorkshire, information obtained from the 1991 census will be fed into the Government's calculations with great urgency?

Mr. Jackson: I think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. I regret that the level of full-time employment in his constituency is below the national average. However, there has been not a deterioration but a sharp improvement in employment levels in South Yorkshire and Wentworth in the late 1980s. I ask the hon. Gentleman to study carefully the figures in the 1989 census of employment, which will be published early next month and will show an appreciable improvement in full-time employment over that period.

British Nuclear Fuels

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has had any discussions with BNFL on health and safety in the workplace.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): No, but officials from the Health and Safety Executive are in regular communication with BNFL on health and safety matters in discharging their normal regulatory functions.

Mr. Griffiths: If the Government are so sure about the health and safety record, why do not they encourage BNFL to go for on-site storage and reprocessing, rather than letting highly toxic nuclear fuels travel through my constituency in the heart of Edinburgh on their way from Torness?

Mr. Forth: The answer is simple. The Health and Safety Executive has responsibility for safety levels at sites such as BNFL and others, through the nuclear installations inspectorate, and I am satisfied that it discharges its responsibility to the full. The record of safety at nuclear sites fully bears that out. Responsibility for transporting materials of whatever kind from one place to another comes under the Department of Transport and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue his inquiries with that Department.

Tourism

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being made by his Department to stimulate tourism.

Mr. Howard: In recognition of the present difficulties facing the industry, £800,000 has been made available to the English tourist board for a major marketing campaign starting this month, and the British Tourist Authority will receive an extra £800,000 in 1991–92 to promote Britain overseas. I am visiting north America in the week commencing 7 April to help boost interest there in Britain as a place to visit.

Mr. Butterfill: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, the last time we had problems with terrorism and people in the United States were deterred from visiting this country, a number of initiatives were taken in the United States, including meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend's counterpart in the United States. Will he meet his counterpart when he visits the United States and assure us that everything will be done to return Brawn to a healthy state of tourism, particularly from that country?

Mr. Howard: 1 can certainly give my hon. Friend those assurances. I shall do all I can to remind Americans that they will be very welcome here. We expect many of them to visit in the months ahead.

Mr. Ashton: While the Government are proud to give £800,000 to tourism how much has been taken out of tourism with the increase in VAT to 17½ per cent., which was announced last week'? Surely that step will encourage many thousands more people to take their holidays in Benidorm instead of Bournemouth and will be a devastating blow to the tourist industry in Britain.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect different rules to apply to the tourist industry and to other industries. If he or any other Opposition Member suggests that local government contributions to local government services should be reduced—as we think they should be—but not financed through VAT, perhaps they will say how they would finance them.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of how fast Southampton is advancing in the tourist market? What help is his Department giving us and what facilities will be available for new areas of tourism such as the port of Southampton, the ocean village, marinas and many other facilities in the area?

Mr. Howard: I am aware of the many attractions of Southampton. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Southern tourist board is doing what it can to draw Southampton's tourist attractions to the attention of potential visitors.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State admit to the House that the £800,000 that he announced is not new money, but money that was already destined to go to tourism? As he was invited to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), will the Secretary of State accept that the industry reckons that the £800,000 that he claims to be making available bears scant comparison with the £300 million that the industry will lose due to the VAT change? The industry makes that comparison because it knows that the Government are not prepared to do anything for it.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures for one moment. I note that he repeats the question asked by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) without dealing with the essential point underlying that question, which I put to him and invited him and his colleagues to answer.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the new money that he has made available will be widely welcomed in the industry? Has he heard the news that £1 billion is the current estimate of the loss to airlines alone around the world as a result of the Gulf war and the recession? Therefore, will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to monitor carefully the effect of those events on tourism in Britain, and the benefit to it of the money that he has made available, to ensure that the industry survives for the next few months?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give that assurance. I am working closely with the British Tourist Authority so that we do all that we can to encourage the industry and to encourage more people to come to Britain to enjoy all the attractions that we have to offer.

Factory Inspectors

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current number of factory inspectors in post.

Mr. Forth: On 1 March 1991, 632·5 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive, an increase of 7 per cent. since 1988. Details of further planned increases in inspectors will be published late in May or June in the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has now received for his approval.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree with the director-general of the Health and Safety Executive who. when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, said that there were far too many serious


accidents in industry? Does not that mean that we should employ more factory inspectors? Will the Minister consider the fact that, many years ago, it was possible for factory inspectors to go round seeking out unregistered premises? That service has gone by the board under the Tory Government. As a result, one young man was killed in a plastic baling machine at an unregistered premises and a self-employed worker, taking part in the Conservative's enterprise culture, bought a defective baling machine, into which he fell while it was on unregistered premises, and was killed. Does not the Minister think it time that the Government took more time to prevent such accidents from occurring? That means employing more factory inspectors and devoting more time to seeking out the cowboys in unregistered premises.

Mr. Forth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. There are always too many accidents. That is common ground—at least I hope it is. I part company with the hon. Gentleman over his simplistic analysis whereby he assumes that the number of inspectors in post—which is increasing and scheduled to increase further—is necessarily connected with the number of accidents. Through a careful plan of work, the Health and Safety Executive ensures that its resources are carefully targeted in sectors where accidents are most likely to take place.
I am strongly aware of the problem about unregistered premises, as is the Health and Safety Executive. There are pilot projects in place to identify how many unregistered premises there are and how best to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman's portrayal of complacency and inaction over the problem is totally inaccurate.

National Vocational Qualifications

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implementation of national vocational qualifications.

Mr. Howard: The Government are fully committed to the far-reaching reform of vocational qualifications being carried out by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications under the leadership of Sir Bryan Nicholson. The council has been set the target of completing the framework of reformed qualifications to cover 80 per cent. of the working population by the end of 1992.

Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that national vocational qualifications offer working people of all ages the chance to have their existing skills recognised and set clear targets for their future training needs? Does he also agree that such skills can be attained only if we set standards of training that are as good as those of our European competitors?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The standard of training and the qualifications go together. I hope that many people will take advantage of the tax relief in the Budget to exploit the opportunities that are available in order to provide better training to achieve these qualifications.

Mr. Leighton: We must hope that the country makes progress in these important matters. How shall we know whether we are making progress unless there are clear targets and figures to be achieved? What steps is the Department of Employment taking to set national targets

and time scales so that we can check whether we are making progress and, if not, so that we can take the essential remedial action?

Mr. Howard: I have set the National Council for Vocational Qualifications a very clear target of covering 80 per cent. of the work force with the relevant qualifications by the end of next year. In terms of other targets I look forward to the results of the work that the CBI, in association with other bodies, is carrying out. When that work is complete, we shall consider how best to move forward on the basis of targets specifically related to responsibilities, so that those who are set the targets are able to achieve them.

Trade Unions

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory requirements presently relating to employers' recognition of trade unions.

Mr. Forth: The last Labour Government's compulsory recognition law was objectionable in principle and unworkable in practice. It was repealed in 1980 following representations from the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. As a result, employers are now free to decide for themselves, in the light of their own particular circumstances and the needs of their business, whether to recognise a trade union, or any particular trade union.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to hear that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent document from the Trades Union Congress which shows that if a single shop steward on a shop floor decides that 40 per cent. of the employees want to have a trade union recognised, on his word it should be recognised? I hope that my hon. Friend can give the absolute assurance that that will be totally resisted because it would result in complete ill will and anarchy on the shop floor.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend illustrates very well the extent to which the TUC simply wants to turn back the clock and the extent to which the Labour party is in the clutches of the trade union movement. I think that I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there will be no turning back on this issue.

School-Industry Compacts

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers are involved with school-industry compacts.

Mr. Jackson: More than 8,000 employers are actively involved in school-industry compacts, guaranteeing about 25,000 jobs with training for school leavers.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme covers 78,000 young people? Does he also agree that it is important for industry to continue to play its role by encouraging children to have some influence on their own education and to play a wider role in the community and in industry? Will my hon. Friend give further encouragement to the scheme, which effectively means that by meeting pre-agreed targets young people are guaranteed a job at the end of tuition?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The growth of the compact movement is one of the great hopes for the future and has been one of the great successes of the late 1980s. It started in 1988 and 85,000 young people—not 78,000—are covered by compact arrangements. The first cohort of l6-year-olds will enter further education or jobs in the summer. There is tremendous enthusiasm among employers and I have seen at first hand the enthusiasm of young people who are benefiting from the compact guarantee. It is an excellent development.

Dr. Reid: While we all welcome the fostering of legal and beneficial contacts between children, employers and industry, does the Minister agree that illegal contracts between children and employers are serious? To estimate how seriously the Minister regards this, will he tell us how many under-age children are illegally employed in this country?

Mr. Jackson: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I shall look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman. This is an important issue, although it does not arise directly out of the question about compacts. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen quietly to questions and not to carry on private conversations, especially below the Gangway.

Strikes

Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost to strikes during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: One and a half million working days were lost as a result of strikes in the 12 months ended January 1991. This is less than an eighth of the annual average in the 1970s, and is the lowest 12-month total since 1953. The number of stoppages recorded in January is the lowest for this month since 1929.

Mr. Wilshire: Is not this enormously welcome decrease in the number of strikes largely due to the powers of the courts to sequester the assets of trade unions that break the law? Would not abandoning these powers lead to a massive increase in the number of strikes? Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn the Labour party's proposals to give these powers back to unions and to undermine the courts?

Mr. Howard: 1 agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that someone will rise from the Labour Front Bench and congratulate the Government on the success of our measures to reduce the number of strikes—something which has benefited our country. My hon. Friend is also right to point to the disastrous consequences that would flow from the Labour party's strikers' charter.

Mr. Tony Banks: Instead of being unbelievably smug about what the Government have done, the Secretary of State should be more concerned about factories that are closing completely, because that is causing far more distress in industry and among workers. When Question Time is over, will the Secretary of State find time to go downstairs and talk to the representatives of the 2,000

British Aerospace workers from Kingston—members of the work force in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who are about to lose their jobs?

Mr. Howard: I cannot believe that even the hon. Gentleman thinks that an increase in the number of strikes will help to save jobs. He might be better employed having a word with his Front-Bench defence spokesman, whose £9 billion worth of defence cuts would make the difficulties now faced by the defence industry seem as nothing.

Textiles

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on job losses in the textile industry.

Mr. Jackson: The number of employees in the textile industry fell by 14,000 or 7 per cent. in the year to January 1991.

Mr. Vaz: Do not those figures show the Minister that the industry is in deep crisis? Is he aware that the textile industry loses one job every 60 minutes because of the Government's policies? When will the Minister get off his backside and instead of watching over the destruction of the industry do something to protect it and provide jobs?

Mr. Jackson: Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's supposition, Governments do not provide jobs—the market does. The hon. Gentleman's picture of the performance of the textile industry, for which he claims to speak, is grotesquely wrong. He talks about a grave crisis, but in the year 1989–90 United Kingdom exports of clothing and textiles rose by 14 per cent., from £3·9 billion to £4·4 billion. That does not look to me like an industry in deep crisis.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend accept that in north-west Leicestershire we have a textile industry and despite losing 6,000 jobs when the mines closed we now have 1,200 more jobs than we did before closure? Furthermore, our textile industry is not complaining about job losses because parts of it are extremely buoyant.

Mr. Jackson: It is an important industry, more than 400,000 people work in it, and it makes a great contribution to the national and international economy. My hon. Friend's emphasis, rather than that of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is correct.

Ms. Walley: If the Minister thinks that the textile industry is so important, will he speak to the Office of Fair Trading about the hostile bid being made for Tootal? Does he share my concern that, if that hostile bid goes through, upwards of 200 people in my constituency, working at Slimma in Tunstall could be made redundant because there are no employment guarantees?

Mr. Jackson: That is obviously a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has his attention drawn to the hon. Lady's question.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the effect of TECs on voluntary training organisations.

Mr. Howard: It is up to every training and enterprise council to decide which providers to contract with. I am satisfied that TECs will give voluntary organisations every opportunity to bid for the training that is required in their local areas.

Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when training and enterprise councils are considering the suitability of training organisations, the most important criterion is that that organisation should be able to provide quality training? If there are unsuccessful training organisations, can we please ensure that trainees currently undergoing training in them are transferred to others and that we always keep uppermost in our mind the training needs of those with special difficulties?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Quality training is the supreme objective of training and enterprise councils. It is very important to ensure that if a provider's contract is not renewed the trainees continue to be catered for. That is something that the training and enterprise councils are achieving.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), will the Secretary of State have a look at the prospects for Apex, the ex-offenders' organisation which has been carrying out a unique training programme countrywide but is threatened, certainly in the south-east of England and in south-east London, with the imminent withdrawal of its funding? Will the Minister consider whether such organisations ought to be given special status when the general budget allocation is being made or whether, if necessary, additional funding to minimise the effects of the 37 per cent. reduction in funding that is about to decimate organisations such as Apex, Microtech and the rest?

Mr. Howard: There is no question of withdrawing funding from an organisation in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Each training and enterprise council is reviewing the training needs in its area and deciding how training can best and most effectively be provided. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that objective.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council, which is located in my constituency, has been a very great success? Will he join me in congratulating Colin Shepherd and his team of industrialists on the tremendous amount of voluntary work that they have done to help make the training and enterprise council a success in North Yorkshire? Does he agree that local industrialists, working with the training and enterprise councils, can best decide what are the training needs of a particular area? When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to review the needs of the training and enterprise councils?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to pay tribute to Colin Shepherd and to the rest of the board of the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council. By working closely with the local education authority, they have achieved particular success in promoting education-business partnerships in North Yorkshire. I entirely welcome that initiative.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State accept that his response to a serious issue has been shocking and complacent? Will not he accept that 80,000 places have been cut from employment training, that £300 million has been cut from the budget and that we have the fastest rising rate of unemployment in Europe? Why does he not take the issue seriously? Is he unwilling or unable to reverse the scandalous breakdown of special needs provision in Britain?

Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have made it clear time after time, we believe in looking at the individual needs of unemployed people, helping them back into work as quickly as possible and making sure that the widest range of help is available to them. That is why we are providing up to 100,000 extra opportunities next year by means of job clubs and the job interview guarantee scheme so that all unemployed people have the maximum help available to them to get back into work as quickly as possible.

Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many school pupils and students are currently benefiting from the technical and vocational education initiative.

Mr. Jackson: In the 1990–91 academic year, some 848,000 young people aged 14 to 18 in full-time education in Great Britain are benefiting from TVEI.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are allocating £900 million over 10 years for the TVEI scheme and that that is over and above the general education budget? Will he also agree that technical training is very important to this country for its future in the world?

Mr. Jackson: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's statement. The Government have committed £900 million of new money over 10 years, and TVEI now extends to 80 per cent. of our schools and colleges. Furthermore, there have already been great achievements. For example, science qualifications at GCSE have risen from 41 per cent. in 1987 to 53 per cent. in 1988, and the number of pupils studying science and technology has doubled. We have carried out a survey that shows that 84 per cent. of TVEI students say that they benefit from TVEI, although when the scheme was launched the Leader of the Opposition described it as being fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Manufacturing Industry (Hours of Work)

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to reduce the hours of work of people in manufacturing industry to the average levels of the European Community.

Mr. Forth: There are no plans to introduce legislation to reduce working hours.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister confirm that workers in manufacturing industry in Britain work an average of 44 hours a week—the longest working hours of any of the 12 countries in the Common Market? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate those trade unions that are


leading campaigns towards a shorter working week, and will he tell us when the Government will finally adopt a policy of manufacturing investment that will give people in industry the tools to do their jobs?

Mr. Forth: The answer is no on all counts. First, the hon. Gentleman is typically wrong in his facts. The information I have is that the hours worked in manufacturing here in the United Kingdom are very much in line with those of our major competitors in the European Community. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that trade unions contribute to productivity, competitiveness and employment in Britain by seeking to force down working hours arbitrarily, he lives in a different world from most real people. The hon. Gentleman's question well illustrates the extent to which the Opposition are totally out of touch with the needs of the United Kingdom in the 1990s.

Tourism

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist for the recovery of moneys allocated under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 by the English tourist board where projects receiving such moneys are closed shortly after final payments are made.

Mr. Forth: The English—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to Employment Questions.

Mr. Forth: The English tourist board may require the recipient of a grant made under section 4 to repay some or all of it if any of the conditions have been breached. The conditions apply for 10 years from the date of the final payment of the grant. In particular, a repayment may be sought if the recipient ceases business, for whatever reason.

Mr. Franks: The Minister will be aware of the tremendous efforts that were made three years ago to secure for the Furness maritime museum a grant of £294,000—the largest grant for a single project. The Minister will also be aware of the circumstances that have prompted my question to him. Will he therefore communicate to Barrow district council the answer that he has given me this afternoon?

Mr. Forth: I pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played in the very important project that he mentioned. I wish that project well, but I must repeat to my hon. Friend and to all involved in the project that it is the duty of the English tourist board to seek to recover any public moneys that may have been spent on such a project. No one involved in such a project, be it the local authority or anyone else, should imagine that if the project ceases they can walk away with the public money involved. Our duty is to the taxpayer and we want to make sure that the moneys are recovered where appropriate.

Amble Office

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the closure of the Amble office of the Employment Service.

Mr. Jackson: Six representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend, to me and to the Employment Service chief executive about the closure of Amble. These include two representations made by the hon. Member on the subject. The remaining representations were made by the two local councils concerned. All representations were taken into account in deciding the future of the Employment Service office in Amble.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that Amble has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in Northumberland and that jobless people there deserve help on the spot, not miles away in Alnwick? Will he make it clear to the executive agency—the Employment Service—that levels of unemployment and levels of need ought to be a factor in the siting of offices?

Mr. Jackson: Obviously it is an important factor. In saying that, I speak as a Member who has had two closures in his constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has visited the new integrated office at Alnwick. If he has, he will have seen what a superior service is being provided only nine miles from Amble where, at the last count, there were 377 unemployed people and the office was very small. We believe that we can provide a better service at Alnwick.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the success so far of the training and enterprise council initiative.

Mr. Howard: I am delighted with the progress that has been made by training and enterprise councils. The North Yorkshire training and enterprise council, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, is in the forefront of the TEC movement, and I know that the board welcomes my hon. Friend's close interest in its activities.

Mr. Greenway: Further to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, may I ask whether he recalls that it was the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) who said that in setting up training and enterprise councils the Government were proceeding far too fast? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are now 60 times more training places for young people than there were under the Labour Government?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members have grown used to seeing the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) shuffle uneasily in his seat whenever the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) are quoted at him.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision substantially to lower community charge levels is


very welcome indeed? Does he not find it somewhat strange that the very people who, in the past, complained of lack of consultation about local government are now whining that the Government are being indecisive in doing just that, especially as the chief whiners are members of a party who for the past 12 years have shillied and shallied, dillied and dallied, without coming up with a single workable policy of their own?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts his point very crisply. It is fair to say that the Labour party has spent 12 years reviewing its policies and fudging its principles. On local government, we have come further in three months than the Labour party has in all that time.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall that his predecessor used to describe the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) as "unassailable"? What word would the Prime Minister use to describe the right hon. Gentleman today?

The Prime Minister: It may be the fate of Prime Ministers to be assailed by the unassailable, but my right hon. Friend is quite wrong to suggest that we ought not to have consultation on such an important matter. It is important to get the right decisions and to ensure that people are carried with those decisions. This is a critically important matter, and the consultation is necessary. We shall carry it out speedily, and then decide.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not "perceptive" the best word to describe the contribution of the right hon. Member for Blaby to the consultation? Does the Prime Minister agree that the right hon. Gentleman was perceptive in his warning that the Government are trying to inflict "son of poll tax", and even more perceptive in his view that the Prime Minister cannot choose and therefore should not govern?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken again. With regard to decision-taking, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will himself confirm that in the past few weeks a number of decisions have been taken that he would have wished to take in recent years but neglected to take.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is absolutely right to carry out further consultation before deciding on the replacement for the community charge? Personally, I have always believed that the best solution is to switch all the cost of local government expenditure to the central Exchequer, and I set out the reasons in my speech yesterday. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) at last agrees, but, in doing so, is it not wholly inconsistent of him then to object to the measure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken to transfer the burden from the community charge to VAT? That is a move in the right direction.

The Prime Minister: I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. We are setting out our alternative proposals in the consultation document. My right hon. Friend mentions inconsistency. He may care to bear in mind that the Labour party has set new standards of inconsistency day after day by one moment complaining that the level of local taxation is too high and the next moment whining about the level of value added tax.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question posed by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) yesterday? In his replacement for the poll tax, which is to be the larger element, the personal charge or the property tax, or has he not been able to choose?

The Prime Minister: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman of all people in the House should believe in decision before consultation.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bold and courageous decision to abolish the community charge and, in particular, to replace it with extra VAT. As 2½ per cent. extra VAT will solve half the problem, why will not 5 per cent. solve the whole problem?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has consistently advocated that course, and it is accurate so far as the statistical method of collecting the money is concerned, but there are important principles at stake about people contributing directly towards the cost of local government services.

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: When the Prime Minister visits his constituency he is no doubt in a position to tell his constituents that next year their poll tax will be lower, albeit because the Government have increased taxation by £4·25 billion to pay for that reduction. Knowing how decisive the Prime Minister likes to be, will he be able to advise his constituents on the level of the poll tax in Huntingdon in 1992–93?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know very much about Huntingdon's expenditure pattern next year, and neither at this moment do I. Therefore, the answer cannot be given. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we have taken £140 off the community charge headline level. Do he and his party agree with that or oppose it?

Mr. Allason: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication on Friday of the security service commissioners' report for 1989–90. Does he accept that 55 of the complaints considered by the commissioners were vexatious and frivolous and, if so, will he consider extending the scope of the security commissioners' powers to cover periods before the introduction of the Security Service Act 1989?

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to consider that, but I will examine the matter in the light of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McFall: Has the Prime Minister any idea whether the poorest and most vulnerable members of society will still have to pay 20 per cent. of the total under the new system, and whether there will be a register for the poll tax element? If he does not know the answer, who does? Should we refer to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to


the Secretary of State for the Environment, to the Secretary of State for Scotland or, indeed, to the Secretary of State for Wales? To which of those competing voices in the Prime Minister's Cabinet should we listen?

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman must listen to is what is said in the document that we shall be publishing.

Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be something of a holiday atmosphere in the Chamber today.

Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the calculations made by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which suggest not only that the community charge will be lower in the forthcoming financial year but that the new tax that he proposes—on the basis of the amount that will have to be collected—will also be lower? As my right hon. Friend no doubt knows, those projections are available. Perhaps he can persuade the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to tell the House what the average family living in a semi-detached house would pay under Labour's system.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), however, has not the slightest idea how his system would work, and not the slightest idea of what the tax levels would be.

Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to his consultation document. As it is due to be published in about two weeks' time, he must have some idea what is in it. Can he tell us how much the Government will contribute to council spending next year, and will he confirm that the poll tax element of the new tax may be higher in Scotland than in England?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is correct in one respect—I have a very clear idea what will go into the document, but he will have to wait until it is published.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. Friend meets President Iliescu of Romania next month, will he refer to the desperate plight of the Romanian orphans and ask the president to give the maximum assistance to British couples who are cleared to adopt such children, notwithstanding the lack of support from the Opposition spokesman on children?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly be happy to do that. We are committed to helping British couples who wish to adopt Romanian children, and we are keen to ensure that the appropriate procedures are adopted as speedily as possible. A team of Home Office and Department of Health officials visited Bucharest in

November 1990 to discuss further how to co-ordinate help to that end, and we are in regular contact with the Romanian authorities.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister today take the opportunity to consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and convey to him the great distress caused by his decision not to open an inquiry into the sinking of MV Derbyshire? The bereaved families have been treated with scant regard by the Secretary of State, who sent me a six-line letter about the matter. He knows about the campaign that has been mounted on behalf of those families. I appeal to the Prime Minister to ensure that his right hon. and learned Friend reconsiders his decision.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said the other day, the chief inspector's published report does not warrant a reopening of the court of formal investigation. The position is perfectly clear, and the hon. Gentleman is aware of it.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the proposals of some people for public expenditure to be increased by £26 billion? Does he agree that such a course could result only in higher taxes, higher prices and higher inflation? Does he also agree that the British people want to build on the successes of the 1980s, rather than returning to the dismal days of the 1970s?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The Opposition do not themselves know the cost of their own policies. Their shadow Budget does not add up. Even when they propose to increase child benefit, they forget to include the poor by clawing it back. Their shadow Budget has barely an accurate figure in it.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Can the Prime Minister explain why, under the proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, children in state schools will not be able to study history after 1970 whereas—[Interruption.] I know that the Government have been dithering about it.

Hon. Members: Consulting.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulkes: In private schools, to which the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet send their children in this so-called classless society, pupils will be able to study history up to the present day.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read the documentation more carefully, he would know that he is wrong. There is no ban on history after the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman is confusing what may be studied with the official curriculum.

Northern Ireland (Political Talks)

Mr. Speaker: Before the Secretary of State starts, may I ask hon. Members who are not remaining for this important statement to leave quietly and without conversation?

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about political development in Northern Ireland.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, following extensive discussions with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland—the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party—and with the Irish Government, a basis for formal political talks now exists. I frankly acknowledge to the House that this would not have been possible without the good will and determination of the Northern Ireland parties and the helpful and constructive approach taken by the Irish Government. The stated positions of all these parties are well known. Her Majesty's Government reaffirms their position that Northern Ireland's present status as a part of the United Kingdom will not change without the consent of a majority of its people.
The endeavour on which we have all agreed to embark is an ambitious one. We are setting out to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and betweeen the peoples of these islands. While a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed in advance, I am confident that all the potential participants are committed to a forward-looking and constructive approach. For their part, the two signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—the British and Irish Governments—have made it clear that they would be prepared to consider a new and more broadly based agreement or structure if such an agreement can be arrived at through direct discussion and negotiation between all the parties concerned.
To allow an opportunity for such a wider political dialogue, the two Governments have agreed not to hold a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference between two pre-specified dates. All the parties concerned will make use of this interval for intensive discussions to seek the new and more broadly based agreement which I have just described.
As the conference will not be meeting between the specified dates, the secretariat at Maryfield will accordingly not be required for that period to discharge its normal role of servicing conference meetings provided for in article 3 of the Agreement.
It is accepted that discussions must focus on three main relationships: those within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; among the people of the island of Ireland; and between the two Governments. It is common ground between all the parties that hope of achieving a new and more broadly based agreement rests on finding a way to give adequate expression to the totality of the relationships I have mentioned.
Talks will accordingly take place in three strands corresponding respectively to the three relationships.

Some arrangements will be needed for liaison between the different strands of these complex discussions. All the Northern Ireland parties will participate actively and directly in the north-south discussions. The Unionist parties have made it clear that they wish their participation in those talks to be formally associated with my presence and that they will regard themselves as members of the United Kingdom team. It is accepted by all those involved that, to make full use of the interval between meetings of the conference to achieve an overall agreement satisfactory to all, it will be necessary to have launched all three sets of discussions within weeks of each other.
A first step towards getting related discussions under way in all three strands will be the opening, as soon as possible, of substantive talks between the parties in Northern Ireland under my chairmanship. These will commence with a round of bilateral meetings before moving on, as soon as possible, into plenary sessions. It has been agreed by all the participants that before long, when, after consultation, I judge that an appropriate point has been reached, I will propose formally that the other two strands should be launched. My judgment as to timing will be governed by the fact that all involved have agreed that the three sets of discussions will be under way within weeks of each other.
The internal talks, like the talks in the other strands, will follow a demanding and intensive schedule. In order to ensure a full airing of the issues, it will be open to each of the parties to raise any aspect of these relationships, including constitutional issues, or any other matter which it considers relevant. All concerned have assured me that they will participate in good faith and will make every effort to achieve progress.
It is accepted by all the parties that nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole and that confidentiality will be maintained thereunto. However, in the final analysis, the outcome will need to be acceptable to the people.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, may I take the opportunity to congratulate him on his determination and tenacity, which have been vital in securing the agreement that he has just announced? We are also grateful for the imagination and flexibility displayed by the political parties in Northern Ireland and by the Irish Government. We hope very much that those qualities will still be on display throughout the substantive negotiations which are about to begin.
Today's statement is only the beginning of a process that we all desire will lead to an agreement that will be acceptable throughout the island of Ireland. We are at an historic moment. There is now a window of opportunity, when possibilities for a political settlement are open in a way that has not been possible for decades. We know that all the participants recognise their responsibility because they would not otherwise have come so far. They carry on their shoulders the hopes and wishes of all sections of the people of Ireland, north and south, and of this island. The people will not lightly forgive their elected representatives if, over the next few weeks, they do not live up to the spirit and letter of the statement that has been agreed today. We have confidence that they will.
The Opposition fully support the participants in their endeavours to bring about a lasting agreement which will resolve the dissensions between Unionists and nationalists,


between the two parts of Ireland and between Britain and Ireland. Again, the right hon. Gentleman deserves the thanks of every hon. Member for his statement today.

Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman very warmly for his opening and closing remarks. I join him in paying tribute to those who have participated with me in the conversations so far and I join him in his hopes for the future. He is correct to say that this is a moment of opportunity for us all. I am reassured by the amount of common ground that we have been able to establish in the talks so far and I hope that it will continue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that the Opposition have rendered throughout the process.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the text of the statement some 12 days ago, because it enabled us to study it, and to obtain written clarification and a record of understandings.
May I endorse the statement, which is similar to the draft agreed with us last summer, but which the Secretary of State was not permitted by Mr. Collins to deliver to the House? Does he share my regret that the intervening nine months have been unnecessarily wasted?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I especially endorse the phrase "confidentiality will be maintained" until the talks have concluded? Does he share my view that those of us who will be expected to play key roles must not jeopardise all that has been achieved so far by negotiating over the air in radio chat shows?
Finally, would the Secretary of State be kind enough to pass on my thanks to the news industry for letting me in on the secret that the statement would be made today and not tomorrow as previously arranged?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. In the course of the past nine months, we have been able to secure a greater convergence of all the parties which then made it possible for the statement, which I proposed 12 days ago, to be accepted. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about confidentiality. I would as little expect to meet the right hon. Gentleman on a chat show as I think he would expect to meet me.
As to the date of the statement, all of us were grateful to the participants in the talks that they were able to give us an answer yesterday rather than today. We felt it better that the statement should be made as early as possible.

Mr. Edward Heath: Will my right hon. Friend accept my warmest congratulations on his achievements in bringing the parties of both north and south together in what can be the most worthwhile and productive effort since the Sunningdale agreement was abandoned in 1974 by the Labour Government?
My right hon. Friend says that one group wants to be considered as part of Her Majesty's Government's team, and may I express the hope that that does not in any way give them the right of veto over what Her Majesty's Government's representatives believe to be right in the interests of all the parties, north and south? Perhaps I might also add in passing that my right hon. Friend's achievement shows that consultation can, at times, be extremely worth while and productive? [Laughter.]
Is not the best way in which we can help our right hon. Friend in his endeavours to refrain from attacking any

group in Ireland, north or south, if things happen to go wrong? What my right hon. Friend is trying to do is to deal with the problems of the past 400 years. Those of us who have had an active part in that effort in the past know that, despite the best intentions, things can at times go wrong. There is no point in attacking the other side of the House in those circumstances.

Mr. Brooke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks.
My right hon. Friend's first question related to one of the groups of participants regarding themselves as what I described as the United Kingdom team rather than the team of Her Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend is correct to think that Her Majesty's Government would not be prohibited or precluded from any observations of their own by the style in which others would be joining them in the second strand of talks.
To secure widely acceptable arrangements, we are determined that we should maintain unanimity throughout the process in terms of agreement at the various stages. Anyone will have the right to say, at some stage, that they wish to withdraw, but I very much hope that they will not feel the need to do so.
As to consultation, I realise that that is a theme of other events that are occurring elsewhere. Having been through a recent experience of such consultation, all I can say is that I do not recommend 15 months of it.
I agree, of course, with my right hon. Friend that, when dealing with problems whose roots lie in the centuries, it is sensible not to be engaged in criticism of other parties.

Sir David Steel: May I join in the tributes that have justifiably been paid to the Secretary of State on his great patience and on his achievement on getting all the horses into the starting gate at the beginning of this necessarily long-drawn-out procedure? It would also be right to express gratitude to the people of Northern Ireland, who have consistently sought a new beginning and pressed their political parties to come to the point now reached.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, to those on this Bench, the references to the triangular relationship have a certain portentous historic ring. However, the people throughout Ireland should know that all of us in this House and throughout Britain will pray that their endeavours succeed in bringing peace and tranquility to their attractive land and peoples.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, and I totally endorse what he said in terms of gratitude to the people of Northern Ireland. When one considers what the people of Northern Ireland have been through in the past 20 years—if one extrapolated the deaths to these islands as a whole, that would represent 100,000 dead—their social cohesiveness has been most remarkable and I pay tribute to it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that successive Secretaries of State have not been over-popular in the Province? However, special tribute needs to be paid to him, and I am sure that all my colleagues in this House would want to endorse that. He dealt with these matters in honesty, and with uprightness and great openness, and that was appreciated by all concerned. We did not agree with all he


said and neither did he agree with all that we said, but we met one another on that basis and I think that the people of Northern Ireland and my colleagues would want me to put that on record here today.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the people of Northern Ireland will be greatly relieved that the vast majority of them who voted that talks should take place when three conditions had been met, are glad that those conditions have now been met: first, that we should all seek an alternative to and a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement; secondly, that the Anglo-Irish Conference should not meet while these negotiations are going on; and thirdly, that the secretariat as outlined in the agreement will not be needed if the conference is not operating.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also take it from me that the people of Northern Ireland are now relieved that the Government and the House can see the wisdom of what the overwhelming majority of people in the Province voted for? Will he confirm that the statement that he made to the House today—which is most important to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom as long as its citizens so desire, also confirms what he said in the House on 5 July 1990:
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in national and international law … By virtue of its constitution, the Republic of Ireland has, since 1937 also claimed sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We do not accept or recognise that claim, which has no basis in our law or, equally important, in international law."—[Official Report, 5 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 1140.]

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg, Sir, your indulgence. We are discussing a statement which is vital to the people of Northern Ireland. We only have a short time and it is important that that matter be put to the Secretary of State. I know about the difficulties of trying to put questions on a statement.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the gate into the field has been opened, but that there is a lot of hard ploughing in front of us all and that there is no need for people to go on chat shows or public shows in the media to try practice scores? It would be better to get the participants around the table as soon as possible and to get down to the real business before us.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for the openness with which our conversations have been conducted. I pay equal tribute to him for the directness with which he has said a series of things to me. In the spirit of our conversations, I can say that I genuinely enjoyed them. As to the conditions to which he referred having been met, I also want to pay tribute to the contribution made in that element of the process by others besides the Unionist parties to ensure that the wording appropriately met the concerns of all parties.
Of course I stand by the remarks that I made on 5 July. They are on the record, Finally, in response to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the open gate into the field, and at the risk of mixing the metaphor, I am conscious that the role of sheepdog will have to be continued.

Mr. John Hume: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Secretary of State's statement, which is long overdue? Like others, I express my appreciation of the integrity, dedication and honesty with which he has approached these talks during the past 15 months. Although there have been many obstacles and hiccups along the way, I should also like to pay tribute to the Irish Government and to the leaders of the two Unionist parties. Although there are many difficulties, it is fair to say that all parties approached the talks positively and constructively. I hope that the same spirit is brought to bear on the many obstacles that lie ahead.
I am particularly pleased that all the relationships that are at the heart of the problem are now on the table for discussion, because otherwise we will not solve anything. It is important to note that no agreement can be reached unless agreement is reached on all the conflicting relationships that lie at the heart of the problem. The challenge that faces us is historic and I hope that the spirit that has governed the approach to the talks will continue into the talks themselves.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and welcome the spirit in which his party and the Irish Government took part in our conversations. I should like to include my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the kind remarks that have been addressed to me, because he has been engaged in the negotiations and conversations for even longer that I have. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the closing passage of my statement stated:
It is accepted by all the parties that nothing will be finally agreeed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole".

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend and his team are to be congratulated on their patience and tenacity during the past 15 months. Does he agree that what we are hopefully about is achieving an end to violence by making that violence increasingly irrelevant? Does he further agree that, in so doing, an awful lot of political sacred cows must be faced up to on both sides—on the one hand, there is the Irish constitution element of this matter and, on the other hand, there must be some acknowledgement of the working and practice of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which I think has done its job admirably?

Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and confirm that, as I said in my statement, the agenda that we shall be addressing will be open and that we shall he able to address those points. Although the central purpose of our talks is the advancement of constitutional democracy in Northern Ireland, and the relationship with the Republic of Ireland, I hope that, in that process, we shall also be exercising pressure on the terrorists.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I welcome the statement. As one of the Secretary of State's predecessors, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman richly deserves the praise that is coming from all quarters. Not the least reason for my welcome is that, unlike Sunningdale and the Convention, the right hon. Gentleman has managed to get all sides of the Unionist political parties together, which has not happened before, and which may be an augur of success when they talk to the SDLP.
I turn now to the three strands of the statement, which referred, I believe, to "within Northern Ireland", "between the people of these islands" and "between the two Governments". I understand one and three, but what does the second mean? What will they be discussing?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, not least because of the perspective and historical connection that he brings to these affairs. The specific passage in my statement read:
It is accepted that discussions must focus on three main relationships: those within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institution there and the Westminster Parliament; among the people of the island of Ireland; and between the two Governments.
We shall therefore be looking beyond the first strand at what might be future arrangements between those arrangements that we establish in Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I also pay tribute to the consummate skill and perseverence of the Secretary of State. Is he aware that there will be a great groundswell of good will—certainly in North Down—about the talks which may lead to reconciliation, stability and progress in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that there is a need for people in the Irish Republic to visit Northern Ireland, where they will find that the people are not ogres but are hospitable, kindly, generous and friendly?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He will know as a result of recent research that, of those who live in the Republic of Ireland who have visited Northern Ireland, 98 per cent. have said that they would wish to return. For myself, I hope that we can increase the number who visit for the first time.

Mr. David Trimble: I particularly welcome the final sentence in the statement, in which the Secretary of State said that the outcome of any talks would have to be acceptable to the people, unlike the failed Sunningdale initiative, when an attempt was made to ignore the ballot box. Does not the Secretary of State agree that one difficulty that lies ahead is the prospect of an election which would not just interrupt the timetable but might cause problems over matters of substance?
Will it not be difficult to have serious discussions about future democratic institutions for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom when it is the policy of the alternative Government to manipulate Northern Ireland out of the Kingdom? Would not the best contribution of Her Majesty's Opposition to the process be to make it absolutely clear that they respect, and will entirely respect, the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their future?

Mr. Brooke: Of course I recognise that the shadow of a general election casts inself upon these events. It is on the whole unlikely—I choose my words carefully—that a general election might occur during the period of the talks themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] No greater significance should be read into that than that anyone who spends his life in the island of Ireland becomes quite a good betting man in the process.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to make any comment on behalf of the Opposition. For myself, I do not see the fact of the general election potentially interfering with the process on which we are engaged.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): I join other right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the Secretary of State, and I congratulate him on the skill that he has brought to bear on the process. I ask him not to be put off by the North Down Conservatives, who say that he is wasting his time. Will he have a word for them and for others in the Province who are negative about the process? Does he recognise, as I do, that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland wish the Secretary of State well with the process? They want to see peace and political stability in the Province.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the time scale and the time frame in which the talks will take place? In his statement he did not say what length of time would be involved. If the period were to be 10 or 12 weeks, considerable progress could have been made when the time came to an end. Will the Secretary of State build in sufficient flexibility to ensure that whatever progress has been made is not wasted?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As to his comments about my party colleagues in North Down, Dr. Kennedy made some remarks yesterday morning and I had a meeting with him yesterday afternoon. I believe—but it is a matter of taste—that it might have been better if those events had taken place in reverse order.
As to the question about timing, I think that the amount of time which we have for the talks will concentrate everybody's mind. I am grateful for the commitment which has been made for them occurring intensively. It has been common ground among us all in the progress that we have made so far that we should conduct ourselves in such a way that we can hold the progress we are making and not run the risk of going backwards.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will not the Secretary of State agree that there was never a way of striking through the Gordian knot of conflicting constitutional interests in Northern Ireland and that the only way to proceed was to seek to unravel the knot? The Secretary of State seems to have done that with prudence and patience. Does he agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is now about five years old, has concentrated the minds of all the parties in Northern Ireland and that one of the most significant statements that he has made is that the Government of the Republic of Ireland and our Government are now prepared to accept a more broadly based agreement? Does he accept that there has been a constitutional crisis at the heart of the difficulties in Northern Ireland since the agreement was signed, but that that crisis is now over and a time of opportunity now exists?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which his question was framed. All of us who took part in the conversations during the past 15 months realised the nature of the opportunity that was available to us. I have paid tribute before, but I do so again, to the fact that we have been able to converge and people have embraced the view of others in reaching the position that we are in today, which is acceptable to all. I hope that that process will continue when we begin substantive talks.

Several Hon. Members: rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the subsequent business, before the House, which, as the House knows, is a guillotine motion. We also have a ten-minute Bill. I shall call six more Members—three from each side—and then we shall move on.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: My right hon. Friend will know that I have long believed that political stability could return to the Province only by creating a measure of self-government there. Therefore, I welcome what he has said today and pay my own tribute to him for his persistence and patience and his long-suffering approach to this difficult problem. However, it seems to me that the first of the three requirements is the most important—namely, to create self-government in the Province. Will my right hon. Friend give plenty of time for that part of his scheme to be achieved, rather than rushing forward or, indeed, putting any pressure on the parties to move forward to the other two strands? May I also——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: How does my right hon. Friend intend to have public participation in assenting to what may be agreed?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that we shall have sufficient time for all the strands of the talks to be explored. If everyone is to be asked to consider a complete package at the end of the talks, it is only right that the constituent parts should all have been adequately discussed. We all have an open mind about how we would engage in public participation but the concept exists in the statement.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Unionists sent the Government a letter in August 1985 suggesting talks between the parties of Northern Ireland, the London Government and the Dublin Government, a suggestion which was promptly rejected by the then Prime Minister without consultation. Since then, an Anglo-Irish Agreement has been imposed and we have had six wasted years. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is every reason for a general welcome on these Benches for his statement to the House this afternoon?
Is the Secretary of State aware that only two parties in Northern Ireland have expressed opposition to his proposals—Provisional Sinn Fein and the Conservative party? As the Leader of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland has dismissed the Secretary of State's statement as "a meaningless charade", can he say whether the Conservative party in Northern Ireland will be invited to take part in the internal talks that he proposes?

Mr. Brooke: Of course I am conscious of what has happened in Northern Ireland, not only in the past 20 years and the past six years but for a much longer period. It has already been said in the House today that there is a widespread belief that we have a particular opportunity at this time.
As to the views of Dr. Kennedy, the prospective parliamentary candidate in North Down, I had the opportunity of verifying rather more precisely when I saw him yesteday evening what he had meant by his earlier remarks.

Mr. Barry Porter: May I add my modest congratulations to the Secretary of State on what he has done? In his statement, he rightly reiterated the

concern and right of the northern Irish people to remain in the United Kingdom for as long as they wish to do so. But there was an apparent contradiction, although I accept that I may have got it wrong.
My right hon. Friend said that constitutional issues could be raised at any time during the talks. I hope and trust that that means constitutional issues within the framework of the United Kingdom and of the Province. Perhaps he will confirm that. Will he also confirm that, in his view, a jolly good practice for the conversations and negotiations would be for the two Unionist seats on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier now to be taken up?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is not for me to provide a trailer of the subjects that might be raised by individual parties in the process, but a number of people have mentioned to me confidentially issues that they would wish to raise, and others have said that they are expecting to need to listen during the course of the conversations to observations on just those subjects. I said in my statement that those might range fairly widely, and I think that it will not be a single party that will be bringing contentious issues to the table.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a world of difference between agreeing to talk as we have done and talking to agree, as we are about to do? Does he accept that no one should underestimate the difficulties that face all the parties in the negotiations, difficulties that have plagued us for so long? Does he further agree that it is absolutely essential that the political process can and does deliver and that it is clearly seen by all that the only way to tackle intractable problems is through dialogue and negotiations—in other words, through the democratic political process?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and especially for what he said in his concluding remarks. I do not think that any of us who have been engaged in the conversations so far and who will be engaged in the talks underestimate for a moment the difficulties that we shall have. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make it clear that the democratic way is the way to resolve these matters.

Mr. James Couchman: It would be otiose of me to add to the plaudits that have come to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Apart from the caveat that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as the majority desire it, may I ask him whether any other areas are out of bounds? Can he say more about the terms of reference of the discussions?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think it would be helpful of me to do that, not least because we have not yet had the opportunity—and will not have until the talks start—to get into the bilateral talks with the individual Northern Ireland parties. But I made it clear in my statement that the opportunity to raise matters that people felt were relevant went widely. As I said, more than one party has indicated that there are particular subjects that they would wish to bring to the discussions.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In complimenting the Secretary of State on his patience and resourcefulness, may I also pay tribute to all the parties who are coming to the talks? Does the right hon.


Gentleman agree that some of them will now have to work hard in their constituencies because, as the talks move from the first to the second strand, certain issues, notably power sharing and the Irish dimension, are certain to appear on the agenda, and if they do not appear in the final outcome, that will probably strike a majority of the Members of this House as exceedingly strange?

Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who, by their contributions, have got us this far—and I do not want: to exaggerate the scale of the progress that we have made.
From the conversations that we have had so far, I think that all parties are conscious of the constituencies and electorates that stand behind them. They all have essential interests about which they have been concerned in framing the basis for those talks. That benefits the process because, as parliamentarians and democrats, we understand the problems and positions of other people who are taking part in the talks. The convergence that has enabled today's statement to be made has been assisted by the willingness of different parties to contribute to helping others who are taking part.

Young Persons (Alcohol Abuse) Etc.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make illegal: the consumption of alcohol by young presons under the age of 18 years, and the permitting of such consumption; to empower local authorities to prohibit consumption of alcohol in designated areas; and for connected purposes.
This is the third Bill that I have presented to Parliament seeking to solve the serious social problems caused by alcohol abuse, especially among young children. For too long, society and Parliament have ignored the problem. My previous Bill sought to restrict the sale of alcohol to young persons in supermarkets and off-sale outlets. I managed to get the Bill through all its stages in the House but, unfortunately, it ran out of time in another place, where a few Lords and Baronesses chose to kill it for reasons better known to themselves and to the retail consortium that lobbied them to do so.
Clydesdale is one of the largest constituencies in the United Kingdom. It is a good example of "big is beautiful". Thirty miles of the River Clyde run through it, and we have scenery that would rival any part of the world. However, we also have a blight, which affects not only Clydesdale but can be found in any part of the United Kingdom. It concerns young children—often victims of alcohol abuse—walking our streets and falling victim to alcoholism. Inevitably, they fall into criminality which can, all too often, easily include drug abuse.
I first became aware of the problem through my surgery work when an elderly woman came to see me and said that she was frightened to go out of her home after 6 pm. Gangs of drunken youths were terrorising her little housing estate, and pensioners were prisoners in their own homes. I then researched the problem of alcohol abuse, particularly the under-age problem, and was alarmed by my findings.
First, let me explain what I mean by under-age drinking. I am not just talking about the sly pint of beer or half-pint of lager that is drunk in the back room of a pub or disco by 16 and 17-year-olds. Rather, I am talking about the 12 to 13-year-old girls and boys who become hooked on hard booze and stalk the streets at night getting involved in petty social misbehaviour and progressing to serious alcohol-dependent problems that inevitably lead to serious crimes.
A constituent came to see me, breaking her heart about her 16-year-old son who was a high achiever at school and was set for university. He became trapped in a web of alcohol abuse, dropped out of school and got into trouble with the police. He now faces the serious consequences of missing out on his education, and the legacy of a criminal record—a life wasted, all because of alcohol abuse at a young and tender age.
Throughout the past week, the head teacher of Harelees primary school in my constituency has been phoning and writing to me, and the chairman of the school board has been seeking my help, because the school has been vandalised and has been the subject of arson attacks. Everyone knows that those acts were probably carried out by kids under the influence of alcohol. When I am asked what the police are doing about the problem, regrettably I have to say, "Not enough"—or, in the phrase of the magician Paul Daniels, "Not a lot."
Strathclyde police force is the second largest in the United Kingdom; second only to the London Metropolitan force. In 1990, only 68 kids were charged with consuming alcohol under age. Strathclyde covers half of Scotland, but there were only 68 prosecutions for under-age drinking, which would seem to tell us that there is not a problem.
My police division takes in my Clydesdale constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). It covers an area of 700 square miles and has a population of more than 250,000. In 1990, two youngsters were charge with under-age drinking.
I contrast that with the numbers of convictions for other crimes in the Strathclyde police area. My district has the highest levels of offences of being drunk and incapable, for which there were 592 prosecutions. For petty assaults there were 18,013 prosecutions, for serious assault there were 300 prosecutions. There were 2,865 prosecutions for thefts of motor vehicles, and for vandalism there were a breathtaking 3,634. Everyone knows that all those crimes are largely alcohol-related, either directly or indirectly, but the figures do not show the number of convictions in each category involving young boys and girls. The fact that those statistics are not kept says more about the apathy of society towards the problem.
The question that I am repeatedly asked is why, if society deems it bad for children to drink alcohol in pubs and other licensed premises, the law turns a blind eye to them drinking outside the pub door, in our streets and play parks. I do not say that prohibition is an easy option—it is not. I do not kid myself that making it an offence to drink under the age of 18 will make the problem go away.
Education is important, but we must legislate to address the problem, and back it up with education on the dangers of alcohol and the need for a sensible approach towards introducing teenagers to responsible drinking within social disciplines.
I have seen too many lives wasted, too many families broken up and too many communities terrorised because of drink. The Bill attempts to save hundreds of thousands of young lives of kids who will achieve better things for themselves. It will provide freedom from the evils of alcohol abuse. Alcoholism does not respect social boundaries. The Bill is an important measure to help pull young people back from the abyss of despair. It will give councils the powers to designate non-drinking areas, take alcohol off the streets and out of our children's play areas. Pensioners will feel safer in their homes and children will be able to play in the streets and play parks. The Bill seeks to take alcoholism off the street. It will help both the abuser and the abused, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. James Wallace, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. George Robertson.

YOUNG PERSONS (ALCOHOL ABUSE) ETC.

Mr. Jimmy Hood accordingly presented a Bill to make illegal the consumption of alcohol by young persons under the age of 18 years, and the permitting of such consumption; to empower local authorities to prohibit consumption of alcohol in designated areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill (Allocation of Time) motion. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Could you indicate whether you have selected our amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I should have announced that I have indeed selected amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and his hon. Friends.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill—

Mr. Beith: Can the Leader of the House say what attempt he made to secure the agreement of all the parties that the Bill should proceed quickly, and whether he was given any indication that no such consent would be given by any party in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: To be fair, I must tell hon. Members that it was our decision because we felt that it was essential to get the Bill through before the start of the new financial year. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he agrees with the Bill and is willing to see it go through quickly, I am delighted. To get it through this week, it is necessary to take the steps that I propose, and I shall shortly say more about that. The proposed legislation is short, specific and confined to the one purpose that I have outlined. It does not need prolonged debate. Clearly, there are good reasons in favour of the procedure that I propose.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Could my right hon. Friend identify any Bill in the history of this Parliament, or any Parliament, that has been guillotined before its Second Reading?

Mr. MacGregor: I am clearly anticipating questions that will be asked, because I shall shortly come to that issue.
The Bill is short and straightforward. It fulfils the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last Tuesday to reduce the burden of paying for local services that currently falls on local taxpayers. Our objective is to change the balance between local and national taxpayers, and this short Bill will enable us to do that by two means. I shall not go into detail because that is clearly for Second Reading.
Firstly, the Bill provides for community charges for 1991–92 to be reduced by £140, or to zero where the charge set is less than that figure, on the day after the Bill is enacted. Secondly, it provides for grant to be repaid to authorities in compensation for charge income forgone and to meet any extra administrative costs. Until charge


payers receive a charge bill reflecting the reduced charges, their liability to pay any 1991–92 charges will be suspended.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dumfermline, West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the Leader of the House would give reasons for the guillotine motion rather than make a Second Reading speech. If we are on Second Reading, we should be told.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing that is out of order. The hon. Gentleman could put a question to the Leader of the House about what he is saying, but it is not out of order.

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is not listening, because I have given reasons for the need for speed in getting the legislation through. I am sorry if I put the reasons so succinctly that the hon. Gentleman did not take them on board. There are two straightforward reasons. One is to get the arrangements in place before the start of the financial year, because that is what local authorities want, and the second is to get the community charge reduction through to community charge payers. As I have said, it is a short Bill and we shall go into its detail on Second Reading.

Mr. Douglas: We have all read the Bill and we know that it is the Save our Skins (Tory Government) Bill. If that is all that the right hon. Gentleman can say in favour of a guillotine motion, he should just sit down.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall sit down before long, because it is clear what this is all about. The Bill is simple and that is why I can justify it fairly shortly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before the right hon. Gentleman tries to convince the House that there will be a £140 reduction for every poll tax payer, and before we get to Second Reading or the Committee stage, let us get some facts straight. The £140 will go to those who are not getting transitional relief, those who have to pay more than the 20 per cent. minimum and some others in between. The net result is that the poorest among poll tax payers will not get a £140 reduction. The money will go only to those at the top end of the income scale. The Leader of the House should stop saying that everyone will get a £140 reduction, because that is not so.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to explore matters that should be considered on Second Reading. I shall try to avoid the temptation, or at least to deal with it briefly. The whole point of the community charge reduction scheme is clear and simple. It is to deal with the increase in the community charge. However, if that £140 makes the increase disappear, one cannot pay the same amount of money twice.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made clear in his statement last Thursday, the Government are revising the profile of payment from the non-domestic rates pool to ensure that these proposals have no significant effect on authorities' cash flow. That is the purpose of the Bill, which is straightforward and short. The time that we are giving to debate the Bill, in addition to the time made available in the Budget debates, is surely adequate for such a short and straightforward Bill.
I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The House will be aware that there are several precedents for taking all stages of a Bill in one day.

Mr. Beith: Not with a guillotine.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is again anticipating what I am about to say. Examples are the Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Bill, which went through on 17 November 1977, and the Pensioners Payments Bill, which went through on 13 November 1978. I accept that they were not guillotined, partly because there was general agreement about their purposes. Judging by the lack of a vote on the money resolution last night, there may be agreement today. I do not know, but if not, I nevertheless rest my case on the points that I have already made about the urgency of getting the arrangements in place. That urgency, and the desirability of the Bill from the point of view both of community charge payers and of local authorities, justify the procedure.

Mr. Dave Nellist: It may be that not much in the timetable motion divides the Leader of the House and me. I try to learn while I am here, and precedents can be very useful. If I agree to support the right hon. Gentleman today, will he give me a guarantee that, under a future Labour Government, if I introduce a Bill, to go through in one day, to abolish the House of Lords or to give a Labour Secretary of State for Trade and Industry widespread powers to nationalise any company that he wants to nationalise provided that we have a one-and-a-half-hour debate at 10.30 pm, he will do then what he wants us to do now?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now learning from this place. The question that he raises is not only hypothetical but unrealistic. It is hard to believe that there will be a future Labour Government, and even harder to believe that the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to introduce such measures. I shall give no such guarantee. Unlike the measures that the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Bill is short and simple. If there turns out to be agreement on the Bill, the procedure will be right for the reason that I keep stressing—the need to get the arrangements in place quickly.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Leader of the House referred to the money resolution debate last night, the Official Report of which is not yet available. As there is for every late-night debate, there is in the Library a copy of Hansard's transcript of the unpublished proceedings. Unlike the statement in the Vote Office from the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, Hansard's transcript shows clearly that the Minister repeated, two paragraphs apart and on two different pages, so it could not have been a slip of the tongue, that only 8 million people will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. Before the debate continues, we should have a full transcript, taken down by the Hansard Reporters, of that 45-minute debate rather than only what the Minister chooses to put in his statement in the Vote Office.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that, in last night's debate, my hon. Friend said that he thought that that


would be the figure and that if he was wrong he would produce the right figure today. That is a Second Reading point, and I am sure that it will be debated then.
The way in which we propose to deal with the Bill is, I believe, for the general convenience of the House, and it is procedurally in order. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be anxious to ensure a properly constructed and constructive debate. I have concluded that, all things considered, taking into account the need to get the Bill through Parliament before the end of this week and the need to have an orderly debate, a timetable motion is the most sensible way forward.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend said that he would deal with the precedent point. Is he saying that there is a precedent for guillotining a Bill before it has had its Second Reading, or is he saying that there is no precedent? My right hon. Friend ought to outline more clearly, if he says that there is no precedent, why he thinks it right to mount such a monumental attack on the right of hon. Members to discuss a measure and to hold true to their electorate by properly discussing it.

Mr. MacGregor: Let me make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I thought that I had done so. It is necessary to get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament by the end of this week, for the reasons that I have already given. There is not a great deal of time to complete the process. That is why we are proceeding with a timetable motion. At the end of the debate it will be for the House to judge whether the objectives involved in the procedure, and the procedure itself, are right. My hon. Friend referred to the general public. I believe that they will accept the argument that it is highly desirable that the community charge reduction scheme—and the £140 reduction—should be in place in time for the next financial year. If my hon. Friend agrees with that objective—this, I believe, is the only way we can achieve it—I hope that we shall have his support in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Apart from the Second Reading problems, 43 amendments have been selected for discussion. The Bill was published at 8.40 pm on Thursday and we had only half an hour on Friday to table unstarred amendments. In different circumstances, more amendments might have been tabled. There will be a great deal of argument and discussion on Second Reading; the Bill will not be generally accepted. The argument and discussion led to the tabling of the starred amendments. Why have the Government not provided the House with a decent opportunity to debate this measure, including the amendments that are to be debated in Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly hope that we shall do that. I said on Thursday during business questions that this is a short Bill and that I hoped that those who are interested in doing so would move with speed to table amendments. That they have done. The selected amendments, including starred amendments, are being taken in nine groups.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain briefly what the different sections of the timetable motion achieve. There will be three hours allowed for Second Reading, counting from the time at which Second Reading gets under way. The remaining stages of the Bill will then

be completed seven hours after the commencement of Second Reading or, if earlier, at 2.30 am. The effect of this will be that, if the Second Reading runs for the full three hours, there will be four hours for the remaining stages. There will be the usual provisions for disposing of outstanding questions when the knife falls at the end of the day.
Paragraph 9 of the motion provides for Commons consideration of Lords amendments to be completed in one hour. Other sections deal with further messages from the Lords. The question that the Lords message is to be considered must be put without debate, and one hour will then be allowed for dealing with the message.
This afternoon, I have to chair a meeting of the Services Committee that is to deal with a number of important issues affecting the House. I hope that the House will forgive me if I and my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I hope that we shall be forgiven if for a short time we go and deal with one or two matters that are of importance to the House. However, I shall certainly ensure that all the points made during the brief period that I am away are relayed to me, and I hope to be able to respond to those points that need to be dealt with.

Dr. John Cunningham: Just before the Leader of the House moves on from the timetable motion, can he tell us whether the Government intend to table any manuscript amendments on Report?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that the answer is no.
I believe that local authorities and charge payers will wish Parliament to pass this legislation quickly so that they know where they stand before the start of the new financial year. That is why it is right that the Bill should be taken through all its stages in both Houses with all speed.

Dr. John Cunningham: The House faces a familiar scene. Once more, a Tory Government are making a fiasco of local Government finance. Yet again a guillotine motion is enforced as, in a panic, the Government intend to use between £4 billion and £5 billion of taxpayers' money in a doomed attempt to buy off the widespread and implacable people's opposition to the poll tax—a tax which should never have been introduced in the first place. Not only was the poll tax unprecedented: the way it was handled in the House was unprecedented, as is the way in which the Leader of the House is proposing to deal with the business today. It is an unenviable record for any Government.
Three years ago, in the face of all the evidence and in the teeth of virtually universal opposition, the Government guillotined the poll tax in. Now the same discredited bunch who forced that grotesquely unfair, inefficient and capricious tax on Parliament and people want to be rid of it. They guillotined it in and now they want to guillotine it out—no wonder Disraeli described the Tory party as organised hypocrisy.
One thing is clear: the Government do not care about proper scrutiny of public money, if they ever did. They are prepared to enforce unprecedented procedures on the House of Commons. No other Government of any party have treated a Bill of this nature in such peremptory fashion.

Mr. Beith: Or any Bill.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right—no other Government have treated any Bill in this way. It is a disgrace to Parliamentary democracy.
For the Government, this is not the time for care, scrutiny or good administration. As so often, for them it is the time to put the Tory party first. This is a save the Tories' skins Bill, and the 14th fundamental change in local Government finance that they have produced. They have got it wrong time after time, and we have no confidence in their ability to get it right this time.
The Leader of the House asks us to accept a motion to force the Bill through in a single sitting. The sole aim of the Bill is to fix poll tax levels for one year—it is not so much an expedient from the Government as government by expedient.
It is instructive to reflect on just a few of the things that supporters of the poll tax had to say about it in a similar debate three years ago. On Third Reading, the present Secretary of State for Employment, then Minister for Local Government, said:
It is reform that will be good for local communities, good for local government and good for the people of this country."—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 149.]
In a Department of the Environment press release on 13 January 1988, he said:
The majority of households will in fact gain from these proposals.
He said that he was heartened by the support that he was receiving during his nationwide tour promoting the poll tax proposals. Last October, his successor, who was the Chamber until a few moments ago, claimed at the Tory party conference that
poll tax would turn out to be a vote winner".
But he did not say for whom—so much for the Government's monumental misjudgment.
Last November, the Minister for Local Government said of the poll tax review:
That review is now complete."—[Official Report,14 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 568.]
Yet here we are again. As the Government stumbled on into a quagmire of their own arrogance and incompetence, the scrappers' hero from Henley, whom I am pleased to see in his place, appeared to challenge the orthodox Tory view. The Government fell apart, and the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) fell into the abyss. On one side was the "scrap the poll tax" gang, led by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). On the other side was the Tory party equivalent of the flat earth society, searching for a champion. They sent for "Gentleman John", in gumboil retreat in Huntingdon at the time.
The exchanges at that time, too, make interesting reading. The Secretary of State for the Environment, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is reported in The Guardian of 16 November 1990 as having said:
A poll tax review does not necessarily solve some rather difficult problems. Perhaps Michael has some way of coping with these problems which he has not yet told us about.
The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, said:
Resources pre-empted by shifting education spending to central government could not be spent on health, pensions, defence or other problem claims on the public purse.
He went on:
I don't know what we will have to do, and neither does anyone else.

Dithering had set in. We saw it again at Question Time today. The Prime Minister has become the political equivalent of Mavis Riley of "Coronation Street" fame who, when faced with a difficult question, unfailingly replies, "Oh, I don't really know."
Last Thursday, we were told that the poll tax was dead. Or was it? The monster had been decapitated, only to reappear, like the Hydra, with three heads—the property poll tax with a VAT surcharge into the bargain. Once more the Government pretended to be united. But soft,
the isle is full of noises
—and a lot of them are coming from the direction of Blaby. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) denounced the new proposals as "son of poll tax", and made it clear, as we do, that those who cannot choose cannot govern. When the right hon. Member for Finchley was forced out, we all knew that there would be a power vacuum. It is now clear that there is a policy vacuum too. The Government have lost their way and, in the words of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby, they are using consultation as a substitute for government.
The Government are not only dithering about the poll tax. In every policy area, they seem positively transfixed—trapped like startled rabbits in the headlights of an oncoming car—with one hand on the redundant ideology of the past 12 years while the other desperately clutches at any strand of Labour policy it can possibly grab.

Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of dithering, but that is precisely the opposite of what the Government are doing. They are seeking to transfer £4·25 billion from the national Exchequer to local government as fast as possible. We shall be here for a long time today. If, by some mischance, the Labour party were to form the next Government, would it claw back that £4·25 billion? We should like to know now.

Dr. Cunningham: We shall inherit the tax base that the Tory Government bequeath to us when they are defeated.
In a passing imitation of Senator Joe Biden, the Prime Minister superficially parrots the language of Labour's programme for the 1990s, but he dare not endorse the reality of our policies, including the complete abolition of poll tax, because to do so would be to tear his Government and his party apart. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister is a man who does not have the faintest idea where he is going—like this proposed legislation. Bounced from pillar to post by a Chancellor who says that poll tax stays and an Environment Secretary who says that it goes, the Prime Minister can almost be forgiven for appearing increasingly indecisive. He does not know what he believes in any more. Like Mr. Micawber, he simply hopes that something will turn up.
The problem for Britain is that weak, indecisive government is no way to solve the damaging consequences of the poll tax, or the recession, or any of the other problems that Britain faces today. In contrast, people want to see a programme for the 1990s which presents opportunity rather than the opportunism that is so clear in every action of the present Government, and no more clear than in the proposals before the House today.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The hon. Gentleman should throw his notes away and make a proper speech.

Dr. Cunningham: The people will throw the right hon. Gentleman's Government away at the first opportunity.
The best way to reduce poll tax bills is to get rid of the poll tax. We should be debating this Bill, which has been cobbled together in an attempt to cover the embarrassment of Conservative Members in the Chamber today, who almost without exception voted for every dot and comma of the poll tax—every line, every sentence, every clause. Today, they are gathered to con the taxpayer, to use the taxpayer's money in an attempt to bail themselves out. What has happened to the famous saying that Governments do not have money, that it is the people's money?
Even at this late stage, we are offering to co-operate with the Government in the complete abolition of the poll tax. A Bill to abolish it could be guided through the House even more quickly, I suspect, than this one. There are plenty of Tories who, given the chance, would vote for the end of the poll tax—lock, stock and barrel. The Bill is just a one-year buy-off a kind of "live now, pay later" Bill. It does not guarantee that the poll tax will go—indeed, it guarantees that the poll tax will probably be in place at least until 1993–94. Tonight, Conservative Members will vote to keep the poll tax in place, for their constituents and for the people of Britain, for at least another two years. Let no one be in any doubt about that. Under this Bill, billions of pounds of our money are being used to bail out a discredited Government. So far as we can tell, far from removing many of the anomalies, the Bill will create a whole new class of losers—many of them people on the lowest incomes, and facing the toughest financial circumstances.
If the Bill were the subject of a two-day debate, rather than a debate lasting just a few hours, it would still be a disgraceful attempt to con the people of this country. It demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Government are devoid of principle. It certainly should not have been presented to the House in this manner, and there is no way we can accept the timetable motion.

Mr. David Wilshire: Although I am one of the Members who supported the introduction of the community charge legislation, I want to make it absolutely clear that I believe that both this Bill and the guillotine motion are not only necessary but desirable. The Bill strikes me as necessary because the British people have made it clear that they consider community charges to be too high. The guillotine motion is necessary because the British people have made it clear that they want action now—not next month or next year—to bring those charges down.

Mr. Brian Wilson: For the guidance of the House and to refresh the memory of some Opposition Members, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he was a member of the Committee which considered the Local Government Finance Bill? Even by the standards of Conservative members of that Committee, he was one of those most active in sneering at and denigrating every attempt by Opposition Members to point out the error of his ways. Perhaps he should start by apologising for that.

Mr. Wilshire: I have already made it clear where I stood. I did serve on that Committee. I did believe in what

I was doing. I see nothing to apologise for, because the principles that we were seeking to achieve were right. It is what has happened since that has led me to change my mind. Therefore, I do not apologise for serving on that Committee, and I am happy to make sure that the record is clear.
The Bill is desirable, because it lifts the excessive and unfair burden on local taxpayers, and the guillotine motion is desirable because it is the only way that I and the Government can see to give relief from 1 April 1991. Any other way would result in relief being given from April 1992, and that would be to ignore the message of the British people.
It is important to put the Bill and the guillotine motion in their proper context.

Mr. Tony Banks: In the dustbin.

Mr. Wilshire: If the Labour party put the Bill and the guillotine motion in the dustbin, it would deny £140 help per head to people in six days' time. If that is the Labour party's policy, let that be made clear.

Dr. Cunningham: In the interests of greater accuracy, the hon. Gentleman had better accept, because it is true, that the Bill does not guarantee £140 off each person's bill. That is a complete fallacy, and the hon. Gentleman should not repeat it, because it will simply mislead and bitterly disappoint millions of people. As the hon. Gentleman was one of those who railroaded poll tax through the House, voted for the guillotine and said how wonderful the tax would be, does he not think that a little humility would not come amiss?

Mr. Wilshire: If I were to respond to that in the detail that it requires, Mr. Speaker, you would call me to order, because I would be making a Second Reading speech. However, I shall be delighted to respond if I catch your eye later. For the time being, let me concentrate on making sure that we put the Bill and the guillotine motion into their proper context.
What we are discussing now and what we shall be discussing for the rest of the day is not part of the fundamental review of local government. It has nothing to do with boundaries, services or local democracy; nor has it anything to do with the replacement of the community charge. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that we are now guillotining out the community charge. What we are doing is guillotining in help for people while the Government and the House take their time to work out the best way forward.
We are dealing with an interim measure, and we need to be clear about that. This is an interim measure while the Government and the country rightly take their time to work their way through the fundamental review and find the best possible replacement. But while we are taking time to get it right, the public are demanding action now and the Bill, and the guillotine motion will provide that instant action.
It is also important to understand why an interim approach at this stage is correct. As I have just said, the main review will take time, and it must be comprehensive. Even if Opposition Members, or even my hon. Friends, wanted to rush through a permanent replacement, that could not be done in six days.
The hon. Member for Copeland said that the best way to reduce the bills was to get rid of the community charge now. That just shows how little the Labour party understands about the reality of local government finance. There is no way in which we can come up with an entirely new system, even one such as the Opposition's, which has no details, in six days.
We also need to understand why the timing of the Bill and the guillotine motion could not have been different. They could not have been sooner, and they certainly could not have been later. If we had tried to discuss the matter sooner, we would have been discussing an increase in grant ahead of a Budget, and Opposition Members would correctly have asked us where we would get the money from, which would have been to pre-empt a Budget.
Anyone who knows anything about finance will know that a Budget cannot be brought forward by two or three weeks at the drop of a hat. I can imagine the noises that we would hear from Opposition Members if we brought in two Budgets—one to deal with the community charge and another a few weeks later. The blood pressure of Opposition Members would have been wondrous to behold. There was no way that it could be done sooner and there certainly is no way that it could be done later. There are six days left before the start of the new financial year.

Mr. Wilson: If those Budgets caused as much hilarity and entertainment on the Opposition Benches as the latest Budget, the Government could bring in as many Budgets as they wanted.

Mr. Wilshire: I am trying to work out whether I should laugh at that. I think that it was meant to be funny, but I cannot quite see how.

Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend will remember that this Government have brought in one Budget a year. The previous Labour Government brought in Budget after Budget after Budget so that industry and commerce did not know where they were, and nor did the ordinary people, from one week to the next.

Mr. Wilshire: That is correct. The point that my hon. Friend did not make is that that succession of Budgets was no laughing matter.
The other reason why this measure could not have been introduced later is that not only do councils need to understand where they are as quickly as possible, but the community charge payers need to be able to pay their bills as quickly as possible. Unlike some Labour Members, the overwhelming majority of the British people want to pay their bills and do not like to duck out and break the law.
We also need to understand in a little more detail why immediate action and the guillotine motion are necessary.

Mr. Tony Banks: Because the Government are panicking.

Mr. Wilshire: It is not because we are panicking. That just goes to show that Opposition Members simply do not understand. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not because we are panicking; it is because the community charges are too high. They must come down now, and this is the only way to bring them down. It might help if the hon. Gentleman understood in some detail why those charges are too high. He will expect me to say that it is because of the overspending of quite a few councils, and he knows better than I which councils those are and why. But

we must also be clear that community charges are too high because of the switch in funding that has taken place in recent years.
I see great evidence that the capping rules have begun to bring councils to heel. There is growing evidence that capping works and that the overspending of councils is coming under control.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the Government have taken about £58 billion from local government since 1979? It is right that the hon. Gentleman should observe that fact and see that clearly as the reason why so much pressure has been put on local government services. It has taken him a long time to realise that, but we are grateful that at long last it has dawned on him.

Mr. Wilshire: I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have always been truthful in describing the situation. I hope that, from time to time, the hon. Gentleman will admit the shortcomings of Labour councils. Whenever I hear him talk, he simply apologises for them.
Capping has dealt with the first of those two reasons why the charges are too high. We have begun to rein in the excessive spending of councils, especially Labour councils. The point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is fair. Resources have been switched; I am not denying that. I am saying that we must do something about it, and that is the purpose of the Bill. The guillotine motion means that we can do something about it in the next six days, rather than at some time in the future. The position reinforces the need for the guillotine.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It would be a little more seemly if the hon. Gentleman showed an iota of humility. The fact is that a Conservative Government have perpetrated a terrible crime against the British people, and have been caught. The people's anger is rising: meanwhile, the Government are acting as though there were a war on and they were about to rush troops to some place where killing was about to start—Northern Ireland, perhaps. A Government must be desperate when they must resort to such unseemly tactics to rush through legislation. Such action is normally taken—if the word "normally" is appropriate—when a war is imminent, or already taking place.

Mr. Wilshire: That is fairly colourful language. I do not want to be drawn into the question of Northern Ireland, and I do not think that Northern Ireland Members are particularly interested in the community charge, as it does not apply to them.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of crimes against the people. I am doing my best to prevent the Labour party from perpetrating crimes against the British public by becoming the Government. That is why I do not apologise for what I have said, and why I am not prepared to accept criticisms from the Opposition.
Why do Opposition Members oppose what we are doing? Some have cited "parliamentary purity", but I do not buy that: it strikes me as a smokescreen. As it happens, I favour guillotine motions for all Bills: discussion would be much more orderly, and we would make some progress. Let me tell hon. Members who speak of parliamentary purity that Standing Orders that made it impossible for the House to take instant action when necessary would be


stupid. There is always a time and a place when such action is needed, and even this place must have means of taking it.
Opposition Members have a second reason for opposing the motion. They want to slow the pace: they want to prevent us from giving people extra help in 1991–92. I can only speculate about why. It would not help the Labour party at all if the Government——

Dr. Cunningham: Let me stop the hon. Gentleman before he puts another falsehood on the record. There is not a shred of truth in anything that he has just said. It is perfectly clear that we do not want to prevent people's poll tax bills from being reduced.

Mr. Wilshire: Then what is all the fuss about? I really must read the hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard. I think that every other phrase suggested that he did not agree with what we are about today.

Mr. John Battle: rose——

Mr. Rooker: rose�ž—

Mr. Wilshire: They are all at it now. Let us start with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Rooker: We are doing the job that we were elected and are paid to do—scrutinising legislation, not acting as a rubber stamp. Most of us will be satisfied if we are given the answer to one simple question. We are willing to spend the rest of the day on that, which is why we do not accept the guillotine motion. We want to know exactly how many people will not have £140 knocked off their poll tax bills. We want to know their distribution in the population, and in which regions the gainers and the losers live. Such information would be available in the normal course of parliamentary scrutiny. Given adequate time, it would be provided during a Committee stage or in a written answer.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make a Second Reading speech. That is another reason why I should like to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should love to be able to answer his question.
Only one point in the hon. Gentleman's intervention struck me as relevant to a guillotine motion debate: his point about using "the rest of the day". My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already dealt with that. It is a simple matter. The time that is being made available is more than adequate for even the most conscientious parliamentarian to deal with the issues that are at stake. The hon. Gentleman really should sort himself out.
The reason why some hon. Members do not want people to be helped in 1991–92 is that they want to fight the local election by pointing the finger at the Government for not listening. But we are listening, and we are acting. By May this year, people will understand that they are paying lower community charges. Labour Members are trying to change the stakes in their own favour.

Mr. Battle: Conservative Members are trying to perpetuate the illusion that everyone will receive a rebate of £140. The truth is that the Bill will rub out some people's transitional relief altogether, with the result that they will pay more poll tax rather than less. When

Conservative Members face up to that, perhaps we shall be able to have a proper debate on the details of the Bill. Without knowing the details, how can we discuss it?

Mr. Wilshire: Let me express for the third time my wish to be called on Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the only way in which I can deal with such an outburst.
The third reason for Opposition Members' objection to the guillotine motion is, I suspect, that some wish to prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Who?

Mr. Wilshire: I should love to give way again to hear Labour Members say that they do not object to our reducing community charge bills. Obviously they do object, if they are not prepared to confirm that. If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) meant by his sedentary intervention that he was in favour of a reduction in bills from 1 April, he has no choice but to support the guillotine motion and the Bill. Even his half-baked solution—a return to the old rating system—simply cannot be enacted and put into operation by council treasurers in six days.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman must be bitterly regretting his failure to take my advice when I spoke from the Dispatch Box against the guillotine on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill in 1987. As he, along with most of his hon. Friends, failed to take my advice on that crucial occasion, I despair of his ever listening to it in the future.

Mr. Wilshire: That is fair comment, but it gives me a fourth reason for wanting you to call me again, Mr. Deputy Speaker: it would provide us with more entertainment. All we are doing is stacking up reasons.
Labour Members mistakenly see the guillotine motion as a means of embarrassing the Government. It will not do that; the only people likely to be embarrassed by what Labour Members are saying are Labour Members themselves. All the bluster that they can come up with will not disguise the fact that they have no alternative solution. They do not know what they would do. As I have said, the hon. Member for Copeland could not put the rating system back in place in six days.
If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Copeland said that a "one-year buy-off" was about to be enacted. Bringing back the rating system would be the one-year buy-off, because the Opposition say that they want to do that for a year. It is they who should be embarrassed. They are the people who are being caught out with no policies, and who are seeking to maximise mayhem among community charge payers and councils by going for a one-year fix before returning to whatever they think they may do in future. There is a great deal more that I and others would like to say, but that will be for Second Reading. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make those points then.
I support the Bill, and have no difficulty in supporting the guillotine motion. The public have made it crystal clear that they want action to reduce the community charge now. We have a listening Government, who, having listened, have found a way to solve the problem within six days. Even if we have reservations—as I have made it clear in the past—about the long-term review or about any of the details, that is no reason not to support the Bill and the


guillotine motion. They are interim measures, which give us the chance to get the review into better shape before we act on it.
Swift and decisive action is needed, and the Government are being swift and decisive. The message that has emerged from the debate on the guillotine motion is that the Opposition's stupid claims about a dithering Government are untrue. I hope that the Opposition eat their words.

Mr. Michael Foot: The essential part of the debate happened at the beginning. It was the question put by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to the Leader of the House about whether there was a precedent for a guillotine motion to be introduced without any effort having been made to see whether there could be consultation with the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had to answer that there was no precedent at all. I should have thought that, even on that basis, the Government would have had second thoughts—especially when we remember that one of the reasons why the House and the country are in such an appalling mess over the poll tax is that the previous poll tax legislation was also guillotined. Had it not been guillotined, there would have been a much lengthier debate.
I remember the speeches made by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). If the debates had continued, I do not say that we could have altered the Bill completely, but it might have been a different story. The House would at least have been given a proper chance to debate. It is staggering that a Government who have got into such hopeless confusion by rushing the previous legislation through should insist now on rushing this measure through in an even more headlong and improper fashion.
The Leader of the House had no excuse for proposing to the House what he has proposed today, especially in view of his reply to the spokesman for the Liberal party. When there is agreement between different parties, despite the fury that may accompany the background to a measure, it is a normal process for the Government to say that they want to push legislation through for special reasons—for example, the matter of the timetable, or to help local authorities. It is normal for the Government in those circumstances—when they want to push through legislation quickly—to get the co-operation of the House. They are not entitled to push it through by dictation, especially if it causes so much trouble for themselves and for the country. The Leader of the House made it clear that no effort had been made, so we must assume that the Government preferred to do it that way.
On Budget day there seemed to be some rejoicing about the Government's proposals. Some hon. Members thought that they were a good idea for everyone——

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose——

Mr. Foot: I shall just make this point, and then I shall give way.
A report of what was said about the guillotine motion states that most hon. Members condemned it although some liked the proposals. It may have been the hon.

Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who has just given us such a high constitutional view of the matter, who prompted The Independent to report:
Most Conservatives, however, were delighted at what they hope will prove a short-term solution to the political death trap of the poll tax.
A Conservative Member was reported as saying:
I don't give a damn about the propriety … All I'm interested in is the money.
It seems that Thatcherism is not dead—the whole gospel is there.

Mr. Wilshire: I am not sure whether I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman thought that I could have said that, but I should make it clear that it was not me.

Mr. Foot: Who are the other claimants? I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).

Mr. Arnold: For the benefit of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 20 July 1976? As Leader of the House, he proposed not one, not two, not three, not even four but five guillotine motions. Can he tell us what the atmosphere was like in the House on that occasion?

Mr. Tony Banks: That is Labour productivity for you.

Mr. Foot: I have attended many more debates than most of the youngsters on the Tory Benches put together. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what happened on that occasion. During a debate with the previous Leader of the House about the five guillotine motions that I introduced—I say this to the present Leader of the House—I said that, if the House would like a full debate on the five issues and the problems involved, or what mandate we had from the electorate—[Interruption.] All were in our manifesto—[Interruption.] I am talking to the Leader of the House, not to the hangers-on. I said that, if the Leader of the House would like a debate on the five motions, I should be happy to agree, because it might save time and prevent interruptions by people who had not studied the issues.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have listened to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on every guillotine motion since I entered the House in 1987. He is being uncharacteristically ungenerous today. On a previous occasion, he said that the reason why he backed the five guillotine motions, although he has spoken against every such motion that the Government have introduced since they have been in power, was that he agreed with the policies. That is what he said before. Instead of torturing himself by speaking on each guillotine motion—I suppose it is out of a sense of frustration and guilt—is it not time that he stopped being guilty and retired?

Mr. Foot: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but he did not make the best use of his opportunity.
The best way to solve the problem—and I should be happy to fall in with it—is to approach the Leader of the House and ask for a debate on all general questions. I should then do my best to allay the hon. Gentleman's fears.

Mr. Rooker: Surely there is a difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) introducing guillotine motions to push through


manifesto commitments and today's motion which reneges on the manifesto on which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) entered the House in 1987.

Mr. Foot: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says, there is a slight difference, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) could see it.
I have always advised people to look at the list of names on the back page of the Bill. The list reads as follows:
Presented by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Robert Key.
The list does not include the Leader of the House, or the name of the person in whose interests the Bill has been introduced—the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who has not put his name to the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Heseltine—[Laughter.]—well, that is what he is; he sticks to that principle more than he does to Henley, has not turned up today to help with the guillotine on his own Bill. He may have a good excuse, but I remember a previous occasion, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—I would rather say this to his face than behind his back, but I cannot say it to his face as he is not here—as Secretary of State for Defence, introduced a Bill to privatise Devonport dockyard. It was a scandalous Bill because Devonport dockyard had been properly nationalised and serving the country since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill to privatise the dockyard. He was so discourteous to the House—a frequent habit, as we can see today—that he did not come here to introduce the Bill himself but sent along an underling. I do not remember the underling's name—it was Lamont, or something like that—but it was a person who had no distinction in terms of speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Defence except that, like Nelson, he had a black eye. We did not get very far on that occasion.
It would be most improper for us to proceed with the Bill without it having a proper name. We cannot get the figures right because, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has shown, the Government do not have the foggiest idea about the figures. Let us see whether we can get the name right. I have a few suggestions, such as the "Heseltine Horror". What about that? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, it is not very good. What about the "Major Mite"? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, that is not much better. Let us see whether we can get something better than that. What about the "Lamont Lemon"? I invite hon. Members later in the debate to see what they can do themselves. I am an old-fashioned kind of chap. For the sake of auld lang syne, I still like to use the phrase that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) used. She called the poll tax her "flagship", so the Bill should be called the "Flagship Tax Bill".
If hon. Members wish to complain about that, they should consider the other Members who should be here to defend the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bath, the spokesman for Conservative central office, should be here defending the Bill. Perhaps he has not yet recovered from the saturnalia at Southport. Of all the grim and grisly events of the past 10 or 15 years, the encounter at Southport must have been almost the worse.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not come to the House today as he should have done. I am so old that I can hardly tell the difference between the Pattens, the Patties, the Patsies and the others. I cannot imagine how you tell the difference between them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At least one of them should have had his name on the Bill. Until one of those right hon. Members puts his name to the Bill, and until we have an explanation from them, I shall consider the Bill to be an even bigger fraud than it appears on the face of it.
Yesterday, we had a most interesting contribution to the discussion from the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I am reminded of one of the most extraordinary aspects of the whole affair—if I malign any hon. Member, I am sure that he will jump to his feet and put me right—when I look at the Government Front Bench and a little further afield and see those who were sacked at various intervals. I challenged the right hon. Member for Blaby on the matter. My comments may be a great deal more popular with the Government today than they were yesterday, as the Government are not entirely pleased with the right hon. Gentleman.
Despite all the commotion about the tax, about its horrors, iniquities and injustices, and about the injury that it will do the Government, not one Conservative Member has plucked up courage to resign over the issue of the poll tax. When I put the argument to him yesterday, the right hon. Member for Blaby said that I could not accuse him of not resigning. However, he did not resign over the poll tax, but over the intrusion of Professor Walters into his own private or public life—whichever it was—which he thought was a more important question than the principle of the poll tax. Not one Conservative Member, on the Front or Back Benches, can say that he put principle before personal interest on the great question of the poll tax. They were all afraid of the previous Prime Minister and bowed to her. It is because of that long, craven performance that the House and the country face this terrible problem.
If the right hon. Member for Blaby bothered to turn up occasionally when he is not making a speech in the House, he might bounce to his feet now and say, "Those of us at the Treasury were working against the tax." I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would try to give some reflected glory to the present Prime Minister on that basis. The Treasury was supposed to be against the tax and was supposed to be working all the time to try to do something about it. As I said previously, some Conservatives claim to have been doing good by stealth. The rest is on record, and that record will destroy the Government.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I should think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are probably as puzzled as I am after the previous speech. Who would have thought that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was the progenitor of the mother of all guillotines? He had support from his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who, in his usual sotto voce way, said that the great benefit of what the right hon. Gentleman had done all those years ago was productivity, that the Labour party does not believe in one guillotine at a time, but in five or even more at a time. We know where they stand.
I do not like the Opposition. I am sure that that feeling is reciprocated. There is nothing personal about it. They are a splendid group of men and women to a person. I just do not like their political style. Let me explain. I remember recently, after one of those many boring, boorish television occasions, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in his usual political style of Laurence Olivier playing Richard III, busily manufacturing statistics, mauling facts and finding, as only he can, the worst in everything. One of my constituents said to me, "Don't worry, Mr. M. he is only a cross-eyed moaner." The trouble is that all of them on the Opposition Benches are cross-eyed moaners. They know that the Bill is necessary, but they are moaning about it. Everyone knows that the rates were wrong, that they were grossly unfair and had to go—or should I say, everybody knew?
The Opposition believed that, by waving a wand and stitching in the word "fair" before "rates", they would miraculously become fair. Lewis Carroll would have been proud of them. The Opposition cannot cope with the fact that no Government before this one have had the guts and tenacity to deal with the problems of local government finance. The Bill is part of that vital and important process.
The community charge was, in many respects, a good answer to the problem. Those who voted for extravagance paid extravagantly. Everyone had to pay something. There was a small problem, but with the successful launch of the community charge, that problem would have been overcome easily. We all accept that the community charge is bureaucratic, but with a successful launch, its benefits would have outweighed the disadvantages. The key was a successful launch, but that did not happen, and that is why we are where we are now.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was a remarkable person—[Interruption.]—is a remarkable person. She was the finest peacetime Prime Minister of this century. Without her premiership, this country would have been heading for the political knacker's yard.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way; I am short of time because others have gone on for a long time. The hon. Gentleman has had his go, but I am sure that he will have plenty of time to have another go later, when I shall not stand in his way. On this occasion, however, if he will forgive me, I shall not give way.
Human nature took its toll, however, as it does so often. Power has its effect, even on the greatest, and the early and necessary success of my right hon. Friend's will power made her too certain and too remote. She began to lack that political beer that refreshes the parts that other beers do not reach. Her political instincts and responsiveness atrophied. It was my right hon. Friend's determination to launch the community charge, warts and all, at a time of economic difficulty that meant that it was floated at too high a level. That launch secured the sinking of the flagship, if not my right hon. Friend's downfall.
In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the public consequently
has not been persuaded that the tax is fair".
Had the community charge been launched at a lower level, it would still be firing on all guns, but it was not to be. It had to go, to die, to be replaced. The hon. Member for

Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) keeps talking about "son of poll tax", but he should realise that his fox has been shot and that the poll tax is going.
That brings me back to the Opposition—where do they stand? Apparently we dither, but we took a massive and courageous decision to reform the finances and structure of local government. We dithered when we took a clear and unambiguous decision to replace a major policy. According to the Opposition, we have dithered because, for a few weeks, we want to consult and to hear the views of others to strengthen the support for, and consequently make successful, a radical and overdue reform of a vital sector of government.
After 11 years in opposition, most parties devise a half-credible, half-worked-out and half-decent plan for local government, but not this Opposition. It is they who are the ditherers.
Where do the Opposition stand today? The Bill seeks to reduce the headline figure for community charge by £140. Are they for or against that? Those who are for it complain that it should have been done in a different way. How? Would they have pre-empted the Budget?

Mr. Battle: No.

Mr. John Maxton: Yes.

Mr. Marlow: One would, one would not. Between them there is a political line that is either naive or dishonest. Either the Labour party has been so long in opposition that it is unfit to govern or its political line is so deceitful that it should never be allowed to govern.
The Opposition criticise our new proposals, but what are they against?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, as I am about to finish.
Are the Opposition against the fact that the change relates to property valuation, or are they against the fact that the change relates to the number of people in each household? In the immortal phrase, "I believe we ought to know." The Labour party is a party of little minds with little policies and negative attitudes, a party the summit of whose ambitions is not to improve, but to delay and frustrate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is signalling that that is precisely what he wants to do. I shall not give way.
I believe that today's schedule of debate provides more than enough time for the teaspoonful of positive thought that the Opposition are likely to bring to the debate—certainly more than they deserve. I therefore support the motion.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment (a) to the motion, in paragraph (8) (2), at end insert—
'(e) the Question on any new Causes, new Schedules or amendments which shall have been selected for debate by Mr. Speaker or by the Chairman of the Committee;'.
As I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and those of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) I began to wonder


about the criterion for those selected, or nominated, for the job of speaking for the Government in favour of the motion. Clearly, that criterion did not cover those who want to address themselves precisely to the parliamentary consequences of tabling a motion in this form in circumstances such as this.
Those who may have spoken in those terms—for example the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—made themselves scarce as soon as they saw the direction in which the debate was going. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a pointed, sensible intervention earlier, and he has stuck the debate out, possibly with some embarrassment. He may yet help to carry the argument further by intervening again, or in some other way, because the motion before us is without precedent.
There is no previous occasion on which any Government of any party have sought to railroad a Bill through all its stages in the House in one day with the aid of a timetable motion. That has simply never been attempted, as nobody has dared to do it or suggest it. The occasions on which Bills have gone through all their stages in the House on one day make an interesting comparison with today's occasion: for example, the abdication crisis, which is a strange parallel to the poll tax reversal of today; the Northern Ireland crisis or an impending general election—the last thing we may contemplate today, given the state of things.
The Government did not need to get into this mess. They are in a hole and they have made a fatal mistake of carrying on digging, which one is always told not to do in such circumstances. The Government have consulted and have taken advice. We gave them some advice, and if they had taken it they would not have to do what they are doing today. The Government could have introduced a local income tax some time ago.
Even if we accept for the purposes of today's debate that the Government had a difficulty and that they wanted to take some action for the coming year to relieve the undoubtedly arduous burdens of the poll tax, it would have been possible to do so without post offices being piled high with bills and sacks of mail. It was not beyond the wisdom of the Government to advise local authorities that, because the review was continuing, it would be prudent not to send out the bills until the Secretary of State had made his announcement on Thursday. That would have covered the unexpected announcement on Tuesday in the Budget—the element of surprise.

Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of piles of community charge bills, and that obviously worries anyone who is keen to cut out waste. If the hon. Gentleman intends to oppose the motion, however, he will ensure that that uncertainty continues. That will mean that more authorities will have even more mounds of bills and will lead to uncertainty for the community charge payer. Now that we have made the decision on the community charge, surely it is right simply to get on with it.

Mr. Beith: I am in favour of that, but my argument is that the motion is unnecessary and dangerous in its consequences. Conservative Members should consider some of the consequences of passing a motion of this kind, whatever the merits may appear to be at the time. Bad

precedents are usually set by people who think that they are doing everyone good. I am sure that that view is held by Ministers and most Conservative Members, leaving aside those who are incapable of distinguishing between the politics of the issue and the substance of parliamentary procedure.
Some Conservative Members might have a thought to the parliamentary procedure, but believe that they are doing so much good that it does not matter what holes they make in the parliamentary system or what coach and horses they drive through parliamentary procedure. I hope to make them think a little before I conclude my remarks.
Having got into this mess, there is no need for the Government to destroy substantial parts of parliamentary democracy as well. Poll tax mistakes have already cost billions of pounds in transfers of money and millions of pounds in totally unnecessary expenditure of the kind that I referred to; why should they cost us significant elements of parliamentary democracy too? We are all paying a high price for other people's mistakes—mistakes for which no heads have yet rolled.
This allocation of time motion is a device to get the Government off the hook, but it is tomorrow's precedent for silencing parliamentary democracy. The Leader of the House has gone to another meeting, which may be important but is not as important as this debate. He presented a pretty weak case when trying to justify this motion. In answer to my question, he conceded that he had not made the slightest attempt to secure agreement from other parties, or even to establish whether there was any basis for such agreement.
I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's evidence for the belief that many hon. Members will vote against the Bill and will seek to prevent it from being enacted. Whatever arguments I might wish to adduce about the greater suitability and wisdom of proceeding by way of a local income tax, I have not yet met many hon. Members who are prepared to vote in the Lobby in such a way as to deny the £140 relief to those of their constituents who will get it, or to deny the lesser relief to constituents who will get that. There seems to be a general disposition to recognise that, although the mess that the Government have made is great, relief is desperately needed.
The Leader of the House has advanced no evidence that he would have difficulty getting the Bill through the Lobbies of the House, and there is not much evidence that he would even have much difficulty getting it through debate in the House. When he talks about the urgency of the matter from the point of view of local government, I must point out that Opposition parties are as fully represented in local government as the Conservative party. We are in constant contact with treasurers, local government officers and councillors in our constituencies. We know about the difficulties that they face—indeed, we have been trying to point them out throughout the period in which the Government have added to them. We are well aware that, if legislation were not enacted this week, it would add to those already serious difficulties. Therefore, there was a clear basis for getting a Bill through this week.
Some hon. Members would advance the argument that timetables from the beginning of a Bill have positive merits and that the procedures of the House would be better if we timetabled everything from the start. That case was advanced by the Select Committee on Procedure when I was a member—the Chairman of that Committee was present during the early part of this debate.
However, that notion was opposed by the Government and also by the Opposition Front Bench because it contained safeguards to ensure that timetabling from the beginning did not deny the right of reasonable debate on issues within a Bill to substantial groups, whether in other parties or Conservative Back-Bench Members. Therefore, it is no use the Government advancing the argument that timetabling could be a better way to do business in the House as they denied a properly safeguarded system of timetabling to the House.
The Government have tabled a motion that does not provide for adequate discussion to develop on specific amendments and for votes on individual amendments. A fair block of time will be available to us, but there is no guarantee that that time will be reasonably allocated between various subjects.
I said that there was a fair block of time, but let me qualify that. There is an amount of time—several hours—in which we can debate the Bill. However, Ministers of all people ought to know that, when one gets down to the details of the Bill, it suddenly becomes apparent that some parts need more attention than others, because mistakes are inherent in the way that it is drafted or problems may arise from it. There is no way that we shall be able to cope with those within the procedure offered to us tonight.
Interest in early amendments may well ensure that many later amendments are never considered and certainly never voted on. That is the reason for my amendment, which seeks to ensure that, in those cases where Mr. Speaker has decided that an amendment ought to be selected for debate, we can at least vote on it. The procedures of this motion ensure that the Government decide the substance of the Bill and what amendments are to be voted on because, when time runs out, the Government will choose which matters will be voted on.
That is also true of Lords amendments. We will have one hour to debate all the amendments that may be sent from another place. In the face of these procedures, their Lordships will be wise to study the Bill very carefully indeed. They may well discover errors and send back amendments. However, the Government are free to decide that an important Lords amendment will only be voted on en bloc with a series of amendments, and thus it could simply be thrown out without debate as part of a group. Frankly, if that happens, their Lordships will be fully justified in insisting on their amendments and keeping that protest going until the House takes part in a proper parliamentary procedure, which this motion precludes in the circumstances that I have described.
The amendments that we will attempt to discuss later may reveal all sorts of errors and problems in the Bill. That is what happened in the case of the poll tax. Hon. Members will remember that Conservative Members focused attention upon some of the serious problems that arose because of the lack of banding or relationship to ability to pay. Those issues were not taken seriously enough, and eventually became the subject of a guillotined debate. Even though this Bill is much shorter, it would be very surprising if some matters did not need to be discussed.
Any discussions on amendments will cover various matters, including controversial issues that hon. Members are fully entitled to mention in the context of the Bill—for example, the 20 per cent. issue. It is the belief of many Opposition Members that it is ludicrous to continue to expect people to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax when they

have no income from which to pay it and would not pay it on grounds of income. The Audit Commission knows that it is ludicrous, because it costs more to collect than one gets back.
That is a reasonable subject to discuss. I do not believe that we would persuade the Government about that matter, so I would not propose that we spent the entire night discussing it but it is not unreasonable that we should deal with that issue to some extent in the context of this Bill.
Another issue is the poll tax in Scotland, where it has been levied for a year longer than in England and Wales. Scotland will not get a rebate backdated to the time when the tax started there. That is another controversial issue, on which, again, I am sure that the Government will give no ground on it, but it is reasonable to mention it in discussions on the Bill.
After we have considered that type of issue, we will come to important technical matters which are less controversial but are nevertheless important—for example, the question of what local authorities will do when it will clearly cost them more to collect the reduced poll tax than they will get from collecting it. That is a reasonable problem which has arisen as a direct consequence of the Bill. Amendments have been tabled to deal with that problem but we may never reach them. Therefore, we shall never be able to sort out the problem that local authority treasurers and councillors will face should they waste charge payers' money by spending more on collecting the charge than they receive by collecting it.
Last night, in the debate on the money resolution, a Minister who once thought that the poll tax was the greatest thing since sliced bread—and has not since resigned—made a few general observations. However, they were not helpful to local authorities, which want the Bill to be properly worded.
Another example of a technical matter of some importance that we need to consider later is the position as regards standard community charges. Are they or are they not reduced by £140? If they are reduced—I see that Ministers are nodding to say so—by £140, will local authorities be reimbursed for the disproportionately greater loss to their budget that some of them will face because of that substantial reduction in standard charges? I have consulted my local authority on that matter. That type of issue has been mentioned to us and should be explored through amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because, as I think he knows, two of my constituents happen to have a second home in his constituency. They have written to me, and have told me that they have written to the hon. Gentleman. Will he not concede that the real villain of the piece is his district council, which misused the discretion granted and charged my constituents a double community charge for their second home? That was never intended.

Mr. Beith: Far from being "never intended", that was specifically envisaged by the Government who included provisions that would allow exactly that to happen, and local authorities all over the country did exactly that. Many of those local authorities had a predominance of Conservative members. If the hon. Gentleman or the Minister—or the Bill—is to tell all those local authorities, Conservative and others, that there will be substantially


less income from the standard charge, that is obviously a factor that the local authorities will have to consider, but it is too late now for them to readjust their budgets if there are to be substantial changes as a result of the Bill. I simply instance that as an example of the technical problems that local authorities will want to discuss later. Some problems may emerge in the debates in another place and return to us but, again, we shall have inadequate time to debate them.
As well as the major controversial issues, on which we shall not gain any ground from the Government, Ministers must know from their own experience of legislation that some issues may arise on which they will even feel disposed to make changes. They may even feel disposed to admit that the drafting is not satisfactory, but we do not have an adequate way of dealing with those problems.
We know what the answer will be tonight. It will be, "We haven't time to change anything." However, during the next few days, the Government could certainly find the time to get the Bill into some proper order. There is no point in introducing and carrying through bad legislation.
The result of all this is a bad day for Parliament. If this was the new procedure for parliamentary debate in Poland or Czechoslovakia, the Government would be talking about withdrawing aid from those countries because they were not setting out on proper democratic processes. This is a dangerous precedent. If this is okay—if it is all right to rush this Bill through on a timetable motion, denying any opportunity of challenge and debate simply because the Government face a difficulty of their own making—why should not the Government——

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's excellent speech, but some of us can distinctly smell burning. We hope that it is the poll tax going up in flames, but perhaps the matter could be investigated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I shall have inquiries made.

Mr. Beith: I have always had the ambition metaphorically to set the House on fire.
If it is in order and if it is acceptable for the Government to solve a problem of their own making by this draconian extension of parliamentary practice, why should not the Government privatise British Coal in one day? Why should not a Labour Government renationalise British Telecom in one day? Why should we not set up a Scottish Parliament in one day on a guillotine motion? Why should we not introduce electoral reform in one day on a timetable or guillotine motion?
All of us would think that we would be doing no end of good by such measures—a good that would justify the abrogation of parliamentary procedure that is involved. There do not seem to be many hon. Members left who are prepared to speak up for the procedure itself and for the need for some kind of guarantee against a Government riding roughshod over the rights of hon. Members to represent their constituents.
If parliamentary democracy were not so fragile in this country, if we had a representative electoral system, we would never have had the poll tax in the first place, and none of this would be happening.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has made an unusual speech in this debate, because he actually talked about the guillotine motion. The only other hon. Member to talk seriously—or perhaps I should say at length—about the guillotine motion was the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), to whom the House listened with great respect and enjoyment, first because of the magnificence of his speech—they are always magnificent—and secondly because no hon. Member knows more about guillotine motions than the right hon. Gentleman.
I remember being in opposition and sitting only a few feet from where the right hon. Gentleman is sitting and listening to him move five guillotine motions in one day. That was not the only occasion on which he moved a guillotine motion. At that time, exactly the same thoughts were in the minds of the then Opposition Members—members of the Conservative and Liberal parties—as have been advanced today by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Mr. Foot: indicated dissent.

Mr. Latham: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we also thought that our procedures were being abused by having five guillotine motions in one day. The argument that he advanced at that time was that the Government had a mandate for it, that they were going to get their will, and that the House of Commons must respond to the procedures adopted by the Government. That argument is frequently used by Leaders of the House, because whenever there is a debate on a guillotine motion, those on the majority side of the House say, "We do not need to debate this at all. We could scrap all the debate and
The interesting thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is that he produced real arguments for debating the guillotine motion. He said that the time allocated was not long enough, that the motion was unreasonable and improper and that the issues could not properly be discussed in the time allocated. He also said that, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had had proper consultations, there could perhaps have been an agreed measure.
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, and I do not think that he can seriously suggest that it would have been possible for this Government to introduce this legislation in this form as an agreed measure, when he knows perfectly well that his party is in favour of a local income tax and that the Labour party is, in effect, in favour of returning to the rating system. Therefore, it would not be possible to have an agreed measure that could command the support also of the majority of my hon. Friends. The Government are clearly, therefore, in a difficult position.
I do not defer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in my admiration for the procedures of this House of which, in the past, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was a great custodian. I remember listening to the right hon. Gentleman day after day when he was Leader of the House, when he behaved very strongly, but nobody could doubt his devotion to the House for a moment. If any of us really thought that the House would be gravely damaged by the procedures that we are debating, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed implied, I do not


believe that many of us would be prepared to support the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is clearly worried about this matter, and his concerns are to be respected because he is independent-minded and clear-thinking; I pay tribute to him for that.
I am prepared to vote for the motion for one reason and one reason only—because circumstances require it. Those circumstances are that my constituents need a reduction in the poll tax, and they need it now. I am absolutely delighted that, following the excellent Budget last Tuesday, my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced a Bill that will reduce the poll tax for many of my constituents.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that his constituents need that reduction now. Do they also "need" the increase of 2·5 per cent. in value added tax?

Mr. Latham: The Government are absolutely right to pay for this concession by increasing other taxes. I have publicly argued for that on many occasions——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do they need it equally?

Mr. Latham: Obviously, they are not likely to like it, but they will accept that it is right that public expenditure should be paid for rather than coming from further borrowing.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend's comment that his constituents want the reduction now goes to the nub of this debate and of the one that we shall be having for the rest of the night. Does he agree that the Labour party has been trying to say that it does not disapprove of the £4 billion shift, but that it would prefer it to have gone, not to his and my constituents., but to the local authorities?
Does my hon. Friend further agree, that if that sum had gone to the local authorities, they would merely have spent it and our constituents would have received exactly the same bills?

Mr. Latham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Returning to the guillotine motion, it is significant that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) began by saying, once or twice, that the motion and the debate were a disgrace; he then talked about the Bill; said again that the whole thing was a disgrace, and then sat down. He devoted his whole speech to the Bill. What really worries the Opposition is that the Government are cutting poll tax bills now.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not my hon. Friend agree that our hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has got it in one? Let us take the example of the people in the London borough of Merton. They have a newly elected Labour council which has increased the demand by £136, which means that the council will have spent almost all the £140. That is an example of exactly what Labour councils do with more money.

Mr. Latham: My hon. Friend is right; that is well understood by many people and it is one reason why the Labour party's results in Wandsworth, Westminster and Ealing were so poor in the local government elections. It is also perhaps the reason why the Conservative party won

the county council by-election in Leicester city last Thursday. I have no doubt that it will go on to do very well in the local elections in Leicester city on 2 May.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not put forward the motion in a spirit of enthusiasm. Of course it would have been better if we had had more time to discuss the matter. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right to say that more time would have been desirable. However, the Government having decided, in my view absolutely rightly, in the Budget to cut the poll tax for our constituents, it is proper for the House to respond and get on with the legislation so that the poll tax can be reduced. That is what we are doing today. I believe that our procedures are here to serve the House and our constituents, not the other way round.

6 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), in a thoughtful speech, referred to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served in local government. As one such person, I should like to make the point that, if we had seen in local government the brashness, arrogance and disregard for procedure that are represented in the motion, the party responsible—whatever its complexion—would have been rejected by the electorate at the following election. No doubt that will be the case when people get the opportunity to vote nationally.
We are being asked to give the Government time—a precious commodity in the House—to deal with a measure when it is clear that not even the Government are aware what the measure is likely to mean. We are entitled to look at the road map before we decide on the route.
Because the Government believe in government in dribs and drabs, by leak, we are entitled to ask why they have got themselves into difficulties and whether more parliamentary time will decrease the difficulties or add to them. On the Government's record, the evidence is that, if we give them more scope, the difficulties will become even larger.
We heard a major leak yesterday in the shape of the speech from the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I do not know about his expertise in financial matters, but when he came to local government and steadfastly refused to give way, he exposed an appalling ignorance of the subject. It worried me that he, with other right hon. Members, should have had such influence on local government in the past decade. Because of the thinking of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, we face the current difficulties.
It is not enough for Conservative Members to say that we are just talking about a reduction of £140 for each poll tax payer. It is much more complicated. If we decide to allow the Government to go ahead in the pragmatic way that they are attempting to do, and have done for so long, we will ignore the picture that is staring us in the face and which the former Chancellor did not seem to recognise. He took credit for an increase of £2·6 billion in the funding of local government expenditure in 1990, but he ignored information available in the Library which shows that since 1978–79, at 1990–91 prices, the central Government contribution to local government has decreased by over £57 billion.
No structure can take such abuse and underfunding without there being local difficulties. It is not enough for


Conservative Members to blame, as they have done for the last couple of years, Labour councils for increases in expenditure. I have never heard such slagging of councils and councillors as there has been in the last couple of years. Surely Conservative Members should have the modesty to admit that their approach to the matter and the poll tax might have had something to do with it.
Yesterday, the former Chancellor argued for even more centralisation and more reductions in the amount of total funding received by local authorities; he seemed to argue that the Treasury should have a bigger say in local government finance. Many of us are worried about it, and our worries increased today because of the question asked by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). We concede that his judgment has not been totally awry, but he tried to persuade the Prime Minister that instead of increasing VAT by 2·5 per cent. he should make it 5 per cent. Therein lies the difficulty—do we believe in local government, or do we not?
When we hear the arguments of the former Chancellor and some of his colleagues, are we not entitled to remind them of the Irish experiment? In 1977, Jack Lynch swept to power in the Republic of Ireland when he said he would abolish local rates. He did it, but most people in the Republic would agree that it has not recovered to this day. We remember the huge protests about increases in income tax, the farmers marching along O'Connell street, and local communities pleading with central Government to remember their needs in roads, social services and education.
It seems that some Government advisers here are determined to take education out of the local government structure. If that happens, it will be to our cost and even more to the cost of our children.
We are told that under the new Prime Minister we have a listening Government. I hope that proves to be the case, but they have not made a good start by asking for a guillotine or, despite their pledges about consultation, by telling us firmly that the new proposals will still be based on the principle of the poll tax, with a clumsy property tax. The Minister of State, Scottish Office—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—has not graced us with his presence in the debate, nor has the Secretary of State for Scotland. How they can go along with the proposal after the campaign that they conducted I cannot understand.
Instead of being asked to adopt a simple guillotine for a few hours so that the Government can tidy up some unfinished business, we are faced with something much more significant——

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman referred to the absence of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In fairness, I was watching that hon. Member closely during Prime Minister's questions and I have never seen an hon. Member look more ill than he did in that quarter of an hour.

Mr. Clarke: I am not an expert on medical matters and wish the hon. Member for Stirling no ill—his political deficiencies will be sufficient for us to remove him when the opportunity comes.
What we are debating tonight is much more significant than many Conservative Members have said, with the

honourable exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as one would have expected. We also hear about changes in the structure of local government, including that in Scotland. Surely, if there is to be a change in structure, we in Scotland are entitled—again, it is disgraceful that no Scottish Office Minister is here—to have a commission such as that which has been offered to England and Wales. We hear so much about consultation but such a commission is being denied the people of Scotland because our Secretary of State says that there is a consensus on these matters in Scotland.
The consensus is much wider than the Secretary of State thinks. There is, indeed, a consensus in Scotland that we should get rid of the poll tax, that we should provide reasonable local services and that the community should have a say in its area but there is a consensus about another matter, which the Secretary of State for Scotland has resisted. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) referred to it yesterday. I accept that most people want a new structure of local government in Scotland. There is an overwhelming demand for a Scottish Parliament to draw up the structure within the United Kingdom.
I do not see why the Secretary of State should say that there is a consensus for one tier of local government but ignore the consensus for a Scottish Parliament. He should bear that in mind. The right hon. Member for Blaby said yesterday that when the case for a Scottish Parliament was last debated in Scotland, it fell at the first post because the assembly that was suggested—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will have fond memories of the debates—did not have tax-raising powers. That was one of the reasons why in the referendum we did not obtain the 40 per cent. vote which the House demanded. Furthermore, the former Prime Minister, Lord Home, intervened during the referendum to say that a Conservative Government would make those tax-raising powers available in any case.
I believe that local government should be seen as local government. It should have the power to raise finance and it should have a reasonable relationship with central Government. Local government has been damaged in recent years. We have not so much drifted as raced towards centralisation under this Government. We have seen the introduction of competitive tendering and the abolition of the Greater London council. The presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in the House day after day is a reminder that the abolition of the GLC was not welcome to local government or the people of London. Far too often, as part of the aggro against local government, we have seen the intervention of the laws, as though people were not entitled to make their own decisions in a local setting. On the whole, that has not been helpful.

Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a great dilemma. What proportion of local government expenditure should come from central Government? He mentioned that if the same arrangements applied as in 1979 local government would be £57,000 million better off. What proportion of that would he like to see go to local government? How does he suggest that it should be raised?

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to be asked that question. There was a time when local and central Government met and agreed on these matters. If that had been the case in


recent times, we in Scotland would not have lost 12 per cent. of global rate support grant as we have done over the past 10 years. I suggest that, despite the Tory ideology on these matters, there is a case for returning to a partnership between this House and local government. It is a matter of great regret that the partnership has been lost. Instead, we have seen scepticism and mistrust. That approach is unhelpful. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the motion before us tonight and move towards strengthening local government. In so doing, we shall also strengthen British democracy.

Mr. Tony Favell: I return to the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He said that local government received £57,000 million less than it did in 1979. It is unreasonable of the Opposition not to apply themselves to the problem of where that £57,000 million should come from. I calculate that £57,000 million is roughly equivalent to 35p in the pound in income tax. Do the Opposition suggest that income tax should increase at the rate of 35p?

Mr. Rooker: The figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) gave was cumulative over 12 years, so let us not have that hare running.

Mr. Favell: rose——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman did not know the facts.

Mr. Favell: I asked a perfectly reasonable question and attempted to deal with the matter. I accept the answer that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) gave. The hon. Member for Monklands, West did not say that the figure was per annum or in total. This is a debate, and it is important that we debate these matters sensibly.
There is a dilemma about what percentage of local government expenditure should come from central Government. It is not unreasonable for me to expect the Opposition to label how much they want. As the hon. member for Monklands, West said, the amount has been reduced. I asked the question—I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) nodding in agreement. It was my parliamentary question that identified that the average community charge now would be £152 per annum if the Government could return to the arrangements which applied in 1979. It was my question, and I have done the House a favour by asking it. I have certainly done the community charge payer a favour because the solution that the Government have proposed—a £140 reduction for each charge payer—is sensible. I am sure that in their heart of hearts Opposition Members, regardless of party, agree with just that.

Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the Government had been prepared to increase central Government grant to Scotland in 1985, when the Government got into the blind panic about revaluation in Scotland which produced the crazy poll tax scheme, we would not be in this position now. We would never have abolished the rates, and the Government would not be in the blind panic crisis that they are in.

Mr. Favell: That may be, It may also be that, if we had maintained the level of government grant, we would not be seeking to repeal the community charge. I fear that that is one thing about which the Opposition are worried. Once the community charge has been reduced, the people of Britain may find it is no bad thing. On the doorsteps, people have made it perfectly clear that they are worried about the level of the community charge. They say, "Mr. Favell, we have no objection to everyone contributing to the cost of local government services. We object to the level." I am not surprised. From day one, I have been worried about the level. It has affected certain members of the community badly, especially, pensioners with a small occupational pension from the gas board, British Rail or whatever, of perhaps £30 or £40 a month. I have a great deal of sympathy with such people.
I for one am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer grasped the nettle and proposed the reduction of £140. Clearly, he had the support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I applaud what has been done. To suggest that there has been dithering over this issue by the Government is a complete travesty of the truth. It is one of the most decisive decisions to be made for a long time.
The Government went to the heart of the problem, and the answer is being implemented rapidly. For that reason, I support the motion. To delay matters now would mean local authorities not knowing the sort of bills to distribute, and that would go on while we argued the toss for weeks and perhaps months. It would be equally unrealistic to expect the community charge payer to wait, because he too must budget, just as town hall staffs do.
The Opposition parties are simply indulging in sound and fury. The fear that the Government have made a decision that should have been made a long time ago and reduce the level of the community charge. I should not be opposed to retaining the present system. There will be time for all concerned to discuss the issues involved, but at the outset we have attended to the root of the problem. That has resulted in our removing the unnecessarily, and I believe unsupportably, high bills that some members of society have received.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Credit is due to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for making an excellent speech, although I take issue with him on one point. I do not object too strongly to the parliamentary chaos that accompanies this legislation. I would rather have the chaos confronting the demise of the poll tax than the chaos resulting from its continuation.
Nor do I resent the panic on the Government Benches that was evident earlier during Prime Minister's Question Time. Any group of people who were determined to impose a poll tax on the people deserve any panic that comes their way. I caution the Government, however. Even a group of people in headlong retreat should pause and allow time to consider whether they are running away in the right direction.
It is clear, particularly from last night's money resolution, that the full implications of the £140 reduction have not been thought through by the Government. Indeed, we now know from the Minister's announcement last night that only at a very late stage did the Government


suddenly realise that taking £140 off the headline poll tax bill would not help many people already affected by the community charge reduction scheme
It was clear from last night's announcement that the developing concern, to put it no more strongly, of people who are already feeling cheated—having been told that they will get £140 the Government were suddenly confronted with the argument that many people would get nothing—has provoked the Government into making more changes in the reduction scheme.
I appeal for more time to consider people in receipt of poll tax rebate who, under the new legislation, will not benefit from anything like the £140. If they are on the full 80 per cent. rebate, the reduction in their final poll tax bills will be very small. Compared with the enormous cost of the Budget measure that we are considering, the cost of exempting those in the 20 per cent. category—people on the lowest incomes, the poor, sick, unemployed and students—from the poll tax would be tiny.
I argue—not just in terms of principle and the general interest, because such an argument would not make much impression on the Tory party, but even on the basis of Tory self—interest that the Government should allow time for us to consider properly the amendments that stand on the Order Paper, especially those that would allow a reduction of £140 in final poll tax bills, as opposed to headline bills, which would properly help not just those in the 20 per cent. category but a good proportion of the
The panic in which the Tories find themselves was confirmed by the Prime Minister a week past Monday when he said with reasonable candour to his Back Benchers that the poll tax had become "uncollectable". Less quoted, and perhaps even more direct, were some remarks made on BBC television about two weeks ago by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee, who presumably has his ear close to the ground and knows what Tory Members are thinking. He said:
We have to listen to the people. So many of them are not paying it.
That has led to this legislation, to the chaos in parliamentary procedure and to the panic in the Tory ranks. Clearly, the poll tax has been tested to destruction.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: At the heart of the whole issue which faces us is a question of timing. We are talking about the largest transfer of taxation—£4·25 billion—for 10 years. The transfer could not have been made earlier. We could not have announced such an increase in spending without announcing how the money would be found. Without doing that, there would have been a run on the pound and the markets would have thought that it was a case of unsound finance by the Government.
National taxation must be announced simultaneously with the Budget, and the Budget must be as close as possible to the start of the financial year to which it refers. So, once the announcement was made in the Budget, speed was of the essence to put the mechanics in place, and that is what the timetable motion is about. It is technically essential to the process with which we are concerned.
Urgency also arises in the need to respond to public opinion, which wants us to take the £140 off quickly, but

we must also respond urgently to the requirements of administrators and financial controllers in individual councils, including Labour-controlled authorities.
Public opinion on the community charge is primarily an objection to the weight of the tax. Time and again we hear that all are agreed that every adult in the community should pay a share towards local government, but there is no agreement about the weight of the charge. An analogy would be a bridge with a capacity for four-tonne vehicles. One does not drive a 10-tonner across, because the bridge would break. That has happened to the community charge.
I welcome the increase of £4·25 billion in revenue support grants because they create a reduction of £140 in the bills that people would otherwise have received. The reduction is popular with the public.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that the weight of the matter is the size of the bill. What does he consider to be the consideration in the minds of people who live in areas where, last year, the community charge was £240 to £260 or, as in my area, £280? Why, if their figures are not weighted, are they also vigorously opposed to the poll tax?

Mr. Arnold: Because what they were led to expect was much less than the outturn figures. We could all make comparisons, as I could for Gravesham.
Why are Labour Members so opposed to this measure and to the community charge? After all, they have not been well known for opposing taxation. Indeed, the Labour party is known as the party of high taxation, and the new programme that Labour Members have been announcing, along with the promises that go with it, proves that they belong to the party of high spending and, consequently, of high taxing.

Mr. Rooker: I hate to repeat the argument, but the hon. Gentleman has never heard a Labour Member say that the Labour party's central objection to the poll tax is based on anything other than the fact that it was a flat rate tax unrelated to the ability to pay. That was repeated ad nauseam during 1987 and 1988 and was the subject of a special one-day debate in the House on the basis of the so-called Mates amendments. Our central objection to the poll tax was that it was the same rate for everyone in a local authority area. The hon. Gentleman has clearly not taken that point on board.

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the community charge is related to inability to pay because it included an enhanced rebate system, which was far more generous than the rate rebate system and coped with problems arising from the inability to pay.
The Labour party is opposed to the community charge because it enables the general public to compare councils' performances. It did away with charging so many pence in the pound on a notional 1972 rental product of a property. People could understand the community charge on the basis of so much a head for one council and so much for another. They began to compare councils and asked why some people paid £250 while those down the road in another borough paid £450. The community charge had become a comparative measure.

Mr. Beith: Should not we debate on such an occasion—it is the reason why I am so critical of the motion—the fact that the poll tax is not clear? Why else do Conservative


councils in places such as Warwickshire and, before it changed, Harrogate, claim that high poll tax charges are not their fault?

Mr. Arnold: Because those councils need to discuss the standard spending assessment components. That does not alter the fact that the community charge has provided figures that the ordinary man in the street can understand in comparing one council with another.
The Labour party's hysterical reaction to the community charge is a desperate attempt to create a smokescreen to hide the real figures. Let us consider the charges net of the £140. Our constituents are to receive their bills shortly. In some areas, the local authority is totally under the control of one party. That is the case with districts that have Conservative unitary authorities, such as the metropolitan counties and Greater London. Others have both Conservative shire county councils and Conservative shire district councils. There are 80 such districts, with Conservative councils fully in control, and their community charge next year, net of the£140, will be, on average, £213. Only three districts have Liberal Democrat councils—at a unitary level or on both levels—and their average community charge will be £230. People must pay 8 per cent. more for the privilege of voting Liberal.
Pride of place goes to the 76 districts controlled by Labour councils, where the average charge will be £268—£55 more than the respective Conservative councils. Thus, people must pay 26 per cent. more for the privilege of voting Labour.
Whichever way we cut the mixed two-tier authorities, we find the same phenomenon. For example, the 112 shire districts under Labour county councils will have an average community charge next year of £268, whereas the 152 shire districts under Conservative county councils will charge an average charge of £226—£42 less than the Labour-controlled districts. People must bear a heavy burden if it costs them 19 per cent. more to live under a Labour-controlled county council than a Conservative-controlled one.
If we cut the figures the other way, we see that the 129 Conservative shire districts will charge an average of £227, whereas the 112 Labour-controlled shire districts will charge £274. Therefore, for the privilege of living in a Labour shire district, people will pay £47, or 21 per cent. a head more. However we consider the matter, Labour councils cost more.
The public already know that the people of Wandsworth, thanks to their Conservative council, will pay a nil community charge in the coming year.

Mr. Allen McKay: Where is the accountability in that?

Mr. Arnold: The accountability comes when, thanks to having voted for a Conservative council and swept away some 30 Labour councillors, Wandsworth residents have a better council that costs them nothing extra this year.
People also know that Conservative-controlled Westminster will charge £36. They may know that Conservative Rochester council will charge £50 and Conservative Wellingborough council will charge £129. The lowest charges in the country will be made by Conservative-controlled councils.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the figures that he quoted for shire councils? He compared Labour and Conservative-controlled shire councils. Will he confirm that, if we compare those lists with the lists of councils that provide nursery education, we find that Labour-controlled councils make provision for nursery education whereas many Conservative-controlled councils make none. If we compare other lists on the cost of home helps, on the number of places available for elderly persons and on other public service provision, we find better and more services in Labour-controlled authorities than in the ones to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Arnold: Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council provides nursery places for every child. I come from an area controlled by Conservative Kent county council. It has been under Conservative control for 100 years and children in our urban area go to council-provided nurseries. The hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely weak.
The four lowest charges in the country are in Conservative districts. Other districts with low community charges include the borough of Tower Hamlets, which will charge £147.

Mr. Beith: Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Arnold: They may be Liberal Democrats, but they have managed their community charge only after receiving £147 a head in area protection grant and no less than £1,461 per head in revenue support grant. I wonder what kind of record that shows. I am proud to show that the sixth lowest charge is made by the Conservative-controlled borough of Gravesham, where people will pay £153—a reduction of almost a half as a result of the Bill. Those are the six councils with the lowest charges, and it is significant that there is not one Labour council among them.
Let us consider where the six highest community charges will be in the coming year in England. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be surprised to find that all six are Labour-controlled? I shall list them. Lambeth will have the highest community charge—it will be £450, even after the £140 has been taken off. Haringey will have a charge of £420, Bristol will have a charge of £384, Islington's charge will be £376, Basildon's charge will be £355 and Oxford's charge will be £344.
One might suggest that the political complexions of the councils with the six top and the six bottom levels were coincidental, but if we look around England, we see that Labour councils stick out from their respective counties like sore thumbs. In Avon, there is only one Labour-controlled district council, Bristol, which is to charge £384. All the other districts in the county of Avon will be put out charges of less than £310—nearly 20 per cent. less than the one Labour district in Avon. In the county of Cambridgeshire, there are only two Labour councils—Peterborough, where the charge is £267 and Cambridge, where it is £329. All the other districts in Cambridgeshire will charge less than £232—nearly 30 per cent. less than Cambridge city, which is Labour controlled.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's advice about the disposition of the charges, but perhaps he will say why a guillotine is necessary and why he is not anxious about using a guillotine before the Second Reading, which is against the interests of every


part of the House. The House should be more mindful than to rule away its rights to debate and discuss issues of importance such as he is trying to address. We should tackle the question why a guillotine is being imposed before Second Reading.

Mr. Arnold: I think that the constituents of every Member of Parliament also have rights. They have a right to have the £140 taken off their bills quickly. Funnily enough, councils, both Conservative and Labour, have rights, and we should get this measure through the House fast, with the help of the guillotine, so that they can make the necessary calculations and complete their administration.
The county of Essex has only three Labour councils—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I cannot ignore the content of the intervention of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and I think it would be appropriate if the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) were to try to relate his remarks more closely to the motion.

Mr. Arnold: I am relating my remarks to the urgency with which the people of Essex need to know what the community charge will be for next year so that families can budget. The purpose of the guillotine is that it enables us to proceed rapidly with the Bill so that it can be enacted and the necessary regulations may be immediately passed, so that our constituents may know what the figures are.
There are only three Labour councils in Essex—the districts of Thurrock, which will charge £266, Harlow, which will charge £309, and Basildon, which will charge £355. All the remaining Essex districts will charge less than £260—more than one quarter less.
Let us look at the county where both Opposition parties take the booby prize——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can allow the hon. Gentleman to do what he appears to be doing—reciting the poll tax levels of every local authority in the country, which is quite inappropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the motion or recognise that other hon. Members are waiting to take part in what is now to be a short debate.

Mr. Arnold: I am addressing myself precisely to the point covered by the guillotine motion. Our constituents throughout the country urgently wish to know where they stand financially. That is why the Bill has to move at such speed. I am trying to relate precisely the reason why our constituents wish to see their bills. The sort of comparison I am giving is highly relevant to why constituents are asking themselves why they end up with such a bill, even net of the £140, which is uniform throughout the country and which results from the Bill. Those are the sort of questions that people are asking.
The opposition to the Bill and, therefore, the guillotine motion involve the fact that councils have been unprotected. Last year, we had the safety net; this year it is the area protection grants. It is relevant to say that, of the six major recipients of area projection grants, five are Labour councils and one is a Liberal council. When they receive their bills, net of the £140, they will already have received area protection grants in excess of £100 per head.
Opposition Members also argue that the councils to which I have referred have greater needs, which have long been reflected in the standard spending assessments on which the revenue support grants are calculated.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Why does my hon. Friend suppose that, if the guillotine motion were lost, the Bill would necessarily be lost? I passionately support our giving the £140 to my constituents. I agree that they desperately need it, but why is it necessary to have a guillotine? That is the question that I ask my hon. Friend. I have asked it of Ministers and have still received no answer. I have not heard anybody oppose the Bill.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend assumes that the Bill would be lost. The Bill would not be lost; it would be delayed. I am making the point that a delay in passing the legislation would mean a delay in passing the grant and passing the figures to the councils, which would delay producing the community charge bills. Worse than that, it would produce uncertainty for our constituents about the community charges that they will incur. Community charge levels are strongly affected by the revenue support grants that are allocated.
Today, we are considering the £140 that is to be taken off, which will feed through to bills. The consolation for all local tax payers is that the Conservative Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has recognised the root of the financial problem for local taxpayers—basically the weight upon them. The Bill will decisively shift the balance of taxation. The House should be equally decisive and pass——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is totally disregarding the advice that I offered him earlier. I hope that he will now relate his remarks more closely to the motion and also have regard to the interests and rights of other hon. Members.

Mr. Arnold: In summary, I am saying that, if we pass the allocation of time motion, we can pass the Bill quickly and our constituents will have £140 knocked off their bills.

Mr. John Battle: Through the guillotine motion, Parliament is being subjected to the political tactics of the ramrod to force legislation through without consideration for either local government or national Government. The legislation is being blasted through the House to cover up for the social, economic and political turmoil that the poll tax has caused for the Conservative party.
The Government are seeking to maintain their image of competence. They believe that they may get away with changing the Prime Minister without consulting the people, but they cannot change the whole of local government without consulting the people or the House of Commons. That is what the guillotine motion is about—putting legislation through the House without giving it proper consideration.
Just six weeks ago we debated the Government's £1·7 billion community charge reduction scheme. The revamped scheme was announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who claimed in January that it would benefit 18 million charge payers. That estimate was based on what he called assumed community charge figures. They were well below the actual figures and within days it


was proved that the Secretary of State's claims were grossly exaggerated and that the Government would make considerable savings to offset the cost of that scheme.
Just weeks later, we face more legislation to unpack and unpick earlier legislation. From the word go, the legislation has been piecemeal and half baked. The Secretary of State's recent statement was delayed because his Department could not fulfil his promise to extend help to residents of sheltered housing for the elderly and the disabled, who would not benefit from any of his existing transitional relief schemes.
In the past 13 years, there have been 125 Acts of Parliament directed at local government finance, and 13 of those Acts have specifically changed that finance. I was in local government for about 10 years and at times we could not fix a budget that would last from the beginning to the end of a financial year because the rules were changed within that year. The practical implications were that, when tenders were put out for repairing roofs, they had to be called in again because the financial arrangements had changed. As a result, local authorities found themselves in the worst of all worlds trying to repair roofs in winter.
Legislation affecting local government was passed with great haste and on guillotine motions without proper consideration for the rights of local government. Since I came to the House it has passed the Rate Support Grants Act 1987, the Local Government Finance Act 1987, the Local Government Act 1987, the Local Government Act 1988, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Debate on most of that legislation was guillotined, because most of it was based on the Government's ideological opposition to local government itself.
The Government have adopted the arrogant principle that they know better and do not need to consult before legislation is pushed through. We have seen the fiasco of the community charge. The Bill was introduced in December 1987 and had its Second Reading on 16 and 17 December of that year. There were 35 Committee sittings between 21 January and 24 March 1988 and the Bill was on Report between 18 and 26 April. Debate on Report was guillotined and the amendments could not be properly considered. There are dozens of qualifying statutory instruments which had to be introduced to amend the shoddy legislation of the poll tax.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend forgot to mention another stage of the poll tax Bill. On one day in July 1988, 400 Government amendments from the House of Lords were pushed into the Bill.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has a record second to none in campaigning against the detail of that legislation, but he did not get the opportunity to put detailed arguments. That is why the Government are having to unpick their legislation.
If the guillotine motion is accepted, we can move to the detail of the Bill. However, it is plain that it does not contain the kind of detail that enables Conservative Members to allege that every person in Britain will get a rebate of £140. We shall later spell out the implications of the clauses that relate to special exemptions.
The Government's purpose in pushing the legislation through is to try to reassert two things simultaneously—that everybody must pay a personal head tax and that the poll tax is related to ability to pay. They will not get away

with that unless they can show how the poorest, who have to pay the 20 per cent. minimum, will be exempt from that. The 20 per cent. minimum payment should be abolished. Last week the Secretary of State for the Environment told us that people receive a social security rebate on that 20 per cent., but they do not, because everybody has to pay a minimum of 20 per cent.
The prevailing view of Conservative Members is that the poor got a free ride under the rates system and the Government wanted to stop that. People got rebates because their incomes were too low. If low wages and low pensions were tackled, people could pay their way and would not need rebates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me reproach a Conservative Member for straying from the motion. I hope that he will pay attention to the issue that is being debated.

Mr. Battle: Many Conservative Members are not willing to concede that everybody will not receive £140. That should be spelt out loudly and clearly at every stage of debate on the poll tax fiasco and the Government's attempt to unpick it.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for you to apply the guillotine to those hon. Members who stray from the motion?

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the shoddiest things about the guillotine motion is that the Government seek to apply it to a Bill about which no details are known and none will be forthcoming? How many of our constituents will get a reduction of £140? The Secretary of State has no idea and, anyway, has no wish to tell the House. Many of my constituents will receive nowhere near £140. They will get about £28 to £35.

Mr. Battle: One of the difficulties about our debates is that we do not get time to study the information on which to base the arithmetic. Even transitional relief will be knocked out by the Bill.
The Government are trying to create an image of competence, but such an image cannot be sustained. In tonight's edition of the Evening Standard, Lord Hailsham says:
The knee jerk approach has never worked for forming policy.
What more knee-jerk approach could there be than this guillotine motion? It is ramrod politics. It is not a case of poll tax mark 2 but of the poll tax not only hitting the people who pay but striking at the heart of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. David Blunkett: I shall ensure that the Leader of the House has the agreed time to reply to the debate, because I do not want hon. Members to feel that he is being curtailed.
To those of us who are in favour of parliamentary reform and, on a personal note, of timetabling all legislation, this guillotine is a grave setback. Sensible timetabling should be aimed at ensuring proper debate of important issues and not at removing the very basis of such rights. That is what the debate is about: we are considering whether to take away the basic rights of


Parliament to debate in detail a substantial measure. It is not a measure that can be nodded through, because it has different implications for millions of people, depending on their circumstances. It is a substantive measure, and it has profound implications for the future.
I say to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) that we are dealing not simply with a litany of poll tax levels throughout the country, but with the circumstances in which people in local government have been struggling to maintain services and to ensure that local democracy prevails. The Bill ensures that the very basis of decision-making in local government is curtailed. Instead of providing for the needs of people, we are providing for political expediency. Today and on previous occasions, Conservative Members have revealed that the proposals in the Bill are aimed at giving the Government a breathing space that will allow them to make changes to legislation that was wrongly introduced in the first place.
Three years ago, the Bill that introduced the arrangements for England and Wales was trawled for three and a half months through its Committee stage. Some of us remember it very well—I ended up in hospital with pneumonia, which was a better experience than debating the wretched measure until 2 o'clock in the morning. Some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have it engraved on their hearts. They lived and slept it day in and day out.
In less than seven hours, after Second Reading and the Committee stage, we shall be asked to approve the transfer from central to local government of the spending of £5·5 billion, reduced to £4·3 billion because of the community charge reduction scheme, when we have not had time to debate the key issues. Again and again, we have called for changes. We have asked the Government to restore the funds taken from local government. We asked on 17 January, when we debated the revenue support grant statement, on 23 January, on Report and Third Reading of the Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill, on 29 January when we debated the revenue support grant orders, on 19 February and again on 13 March when, on Opposition days, we debated the poll tax.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: This point was raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others. Apart from the arguments about the guillotine, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would have preferred the £4 billion to be given to local authorities to spend rather than being used to bring about the objective of the Bill—a reduction of community charges by £140?

Mr. Blunkett: If, in the early hours of tomorrow morning, we manage to discuss the final stages of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will hear constructive suggestions about how the £4·3 billion could have been used to alleviate people's pressing needs, with such help being allocated according to their financial situation rather than their voting power. We would have altered the tax handout and reduced bills according to ability to pay, rather than giving a flat rate rebate—a replica of the flat rate poll tax. We would have ensured that those who most needed relief received it.
The Bill is not about relief or ensuring that those with the biggest problems are given the most cash back. Like the community charge reduction scheme, it is designed to enable the Conservative party to stagger through the local elections and on to the general election. Never have so many provided so much so often for the benefit of so few. VAT is being increased to lower the poll tax, which we all said three years ago would be an electoral disaster. I recall—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will recall this too—that, late one night, when we were saying that the poll tax would be an albatross around the neck of the Conservative party, the message came through that the Synod of the Church of England had voted that the poll tax was unacceptable and unfair. The Conservative members of the Committee burst into laughter. It was guffaws and jokes all round, showing how indifferent and uncaring they were.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is correct to ask why the guillotine should be pushed through. The simple answer is that his right hon. and hon. Friends are not prepared to debate how the money should be used or how the poll tax could be altered, or to introduce a Bill that, rather than tinkering with the poll tax, would abolish it. Such a Bill could have sped through the House.
I am one of the lucky few. My poll tax in London will be abolished from 1 April because I live in Wandsworth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members may cheer, but I do not think that there is anything to cheer about when someone who can perfectly well pay his way is to have his dustbins emptied and his streets paved and lighted at the expense of other people elsewhere who will be trying to pay the increase in VAT that the Government are inflicting on them. The burden of providing my services will be transferred from those who can afford to pay to those who cannot. That is nothing to cheer about—it is a disgrace. It shows the way in which the Government treat accountability.
On 24 November, the Prime Minister said:
I will tell you about the poll tax. We were bounced into it quickly because there was such a fuss about the rates in Scotland. We were bounced without thinking because of the political fuss that was made.
In opposing the guillotine motion, we are saying that the House should not be bounced. Hon. Members should not be expected to take decisions at 2.30 in the morning because the Government want to get the measure through before the Easter recess so that they can reduce bills before the local government elections. Our job is to scrutinise and debate proposed legislation in the interests of those we represent. Parliament is being denied that basic right.
The blame for the poll tax lies entirely with Conservative Members. They invented it and implemented it. The community charge reduction scheme, introduced in January, was supposed to help, with rebates for more than 18 million people. At the Ribble Valley by-election, it was discovered that the people did not think very much of that bribe. It seemed that £1·2 billion would not do, so £4·3 billion was felt to be a better bet. The people of Britain are not so foolish as to fall for that ploy. They will not be fooled into believing that paying with one hand and receiving with the other is anything but a cheap gimmick.
The Prime Minister has the cheek of the devil. Last Saturday, in his speech to the Conservative party central committee, he said:


The only thing you can be sure of is that a Labour Chancellor will have his hands in your pocket more often than you will.
How could the Prime Minister say that, when he has just increased VAT by 2·5 per cent., and when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he withdrew further resources from local government, thus helping to create the dilemma in which Conservative Members now find themselves, and which has resulted in the Bill?
The Bill is a simple, shoddy measure to save the skin of the Conservative party. Those who were hardest hit by the poll tax will gain the least, and those who have benefited most from the poll tax will gain the most from the Bill.
The Government are offering bribe after bribe. Schools are bribed to opt out, and voters are bribed to fall in, but voters will not fall for this. They may take their money; they will certainly have to pay their money, but the Conservative party will pay the price.

Mr. MacGregor: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on his good sense in choosing to live in Wandsworth when he is in London, but he drew the wrong message from the point that he made. He suggested that the people of Wandsworth will benefit at the expense of people living in other parts of the country who will have to pay the additional value added tax. However, the people of Wandsworth will also have to pay the extra 2·5 per cent. VAT whenever they buy goods or services. The real message is that we are helping the people of Lambeth and——

Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: No. During my opening speech I gave way to every hon. Member who asked me to do so. I do not have long to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside ought to be worried about the people who live in Lambeth. They are the ones whom we are trying to help by this measure.
I apologise to the House for the fact that I had to be absent for part of the debate. As Chairman of the Services Committee, I was dealing with a number of major issues of concern to the House, including one of the most controversial relating to dogs other than guide dogs being brought into our premises. I have been given a full report of the debate. In the short time left to me, therefore, I should like to make a few points.
The right hon. Member for Blanau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the leader of the Labour party, made a great issue of the guillotine procedure. As my hon. Friends pointed out during the debate, he created an enormity of a precedent for guillotines when he introduced guillotines on five Bills in one day in 1976—the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Health Services Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and the Education Bill. As a result, he became the arch-guillotiner. That is the answer to his point.
As to the question of a precedent, yes I acknowledge—as I have already fairly done to the House—that there are no precedents for guillotining in the way that we are doing today, but it is important to take into account the fact that in a progressive system one sometimes has to take a new step; otherwise, one never does anything unless it is based upon past precedent.
As I said in my opening speech, there are good reasons for using the guillotine procedure in this way. One of them, as my hon. Friends have made clear—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham)—is that their constituents want the reduction to be included in their bills as quickly as possible. It is a simple and straightforward measure. That is why we believe it is right to get the reduction to them as quickly as possible. Moreover, local authorities need to know where they stand as they approach the new financial year. Those are the two main reasons for wishing to take the Bill through all its stages by means of guillotine.
I notice that the Opposition concentrated on the guillotine motion procedure rather than anything else, but I suspect from the remarks that I have heard during the debate that the point that I intend to make now will be true of the subsequent debates this evening. The Opposition want to concentrate and vote on this motion because they cannot make up their mind about their main policy regarding the Bill. I suspect that they will be afraid to oppose it——

Dr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way, especially as he does not have much time to reply to the debate. He cannot get away with all this nonsense. He dictated the time that would be allocated for the guillotine motion. He did not discuss it with us. It is no use the Leader of the House blaming us for the three hours. If he had consulted us, things might have been different.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point later, if I have time, but he misses my point, which is that, since last Tuesday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have listened to all the Opposition's points on the Bill and the policy behind it and taken part in a number of television and radio debates. I have also listened to the points made—apparently on the substance of the Bill—during the debate.
What is quite clear is that the Opposition do not know what to do about their policy. They are afraid to oppose the Bill because they do not want to be seen not to be in favour of reducing the community charge. They make various noises suggesting that the way in which it is being financed is wrong, but they have never come forward with an alternative. It is because they do not know what to do that they concentrate on the speed with which we are getting the measure through. As so often happens, they looked for a smokescreen, the timetable motion, in order to hide the nakedness of their policy.
As for the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about consultation, as he recognises, we can attempt to reach agreement through the usual channels, but the timetable is very tight if we are to get the measure through this week. It would have been open to any hon. Member, as we have seen so often in the House, to use the normal procedures to ensure that the Bill did not get through this week. That is why we came to the view that the guillotine procedure, allowing plenty of time for debate, was the right way to proceed. Consequently, I


have to tell the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that that, among other reasons, is why we cannot accept his amendment.
I had hoped that I had persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) of the reasons for the measures that we are taking. Let me try again. He, like me, is keen to see the Bill on the statute book by the end of the week in order—I repeat straightforwardly—to enable all community charge payers to benefit from the proposal and to enable local authorities to get ahead with the arrangements. That makes sense, since their new financial year starts next week. My hon. Friend agrees with that and is keen that it should be achieved.
I put it to him that we could not achieve it without a proper timetable for debate in the House. We need to send the Bill to the other place swiftly enough to enable it to be considered by the other place and, if necessary, to consider Lords amendments here. Bearing in mind that Friday is Good Friday and that we have the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday, my hon. Friend will see that the timetable is extremely tight. Consequently, we have endeavoured to bring forward a procedure that will enable the House to deal with a short and straightforward Bill in a well considered way and constructively to debate it, thus enabling us to achieve the objective of getting it in place by the end of the week. That is the simple and straightforward reason for the procedure that I now propose. That is why I hope that the House will pass the motion, so that it can then move on to the Second Reading and other stages of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 236.

Division No. 104]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Allason, Rupert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)





Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Irving, Sir Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kilfedder, James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knox, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Freeman, Roger
Lightbown, David


French, Douglas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gardiner, Sir George
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Gill, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Madel, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Malins, Humfrey


Gregory, Conal
Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marland, Paul


Grist, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hague, William
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mates, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maude, Hon Francis


Hanley, Jeremy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hannam, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Miller, Sir Hal


Harris, David
Mills, lain


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Moate, Roger


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moss, Malcolm


Hill, James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hind, Kenneth
Mudd, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Holt, Richard
Needham, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony






Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stokes, Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Summerson, Hugo


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Walters, Sir Dennis


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Can, Michael


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cartwright, John


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Margaret
Clay, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Beith, A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Bellotti, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joseph
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Crowther, Stan


Blair, Tony
Cryer, Bob


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyes, Roland
Cunningham, Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)





Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
McMaster, Gordon


Douglas, Dick
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maginnis, Ken


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Mallon, Seamus


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gould, Bryan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Graham, Thomas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Radice, Giles


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Randall, Stuart


Henderson, Doug
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hinchliffe, David
Reid, Dr John


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hood, Jimmy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Howells, Geraint
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooney, Terence


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


Hume, John
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Charles
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Sillars, Jim


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Leighton, Ron
Snape, Peter


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCrea, Rev William
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Trimble, David






Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N.
Wray, Jimmy


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Martyn Jones.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill—

Second Reading

1. The proceedings on Second Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

Committee, Report and Third Reading

2. The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of the proceedings on Second Reading or, if earlier, at 2.30 a.m.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put and Mr. Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.

Order of Proceedings

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration are taken.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, any proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

7. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order at this day's sitting.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall he postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments

9.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in one day's sitting and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) The Question that the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith shall be put forthwith.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with this paragraph—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(4) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

10. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

11.—(1) The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conlusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal: and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental

12.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

13.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Supplemental orders

14.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on this day or the following day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

15. Nothing in this Order shall—

prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with after the completion of all proceedings.

Recommittal

16.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee

17. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

The House will know that I would not move a timetable motion without very good reasons. My right hon. Friends and I believe that it is of great importance to local authorities and to all community charge payers for Parliament to pass this legislation quickly. This will ensure that the arrangements can be put in place before the start of the new financial year so that the considerable benefits, a reduction of £140 per community charge payer, can be fed through as quickly as possible. That is the main reason for the procedure that I propose.

This procedure is very much what local authorities would wish in order to make their planning arrangements before the financial year begins. It is certainly in the interests of all community charge payers for us to move quickly on these arrangements, and it will be interesting to see whether the Opposition opposes the £140 community charge reduction, which is the main object of the Bill.

Second Reading

1. The proceedings on Second Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

Committee, Report and Third Reading

2. The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of the proceedings on Second Reading or, if earlier, at 2.30 a.m.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put and Mr. Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.

Order of Proceedings

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration are taken.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, any proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

7. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order at this day's sitting.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and

important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments

9.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in one day's sitting and shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) The Question that the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith shall be put forthwith.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with this paragraph—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(4) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

10. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

11.—(1) The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;


(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal: and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental

12.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

13.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Supplemental orders

14.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing, the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on this day or the following day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

15. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with after the completion of all proceedings.

Recommittal

16.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings, on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee

17. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill before us purports to reduce local government taxation by £140 per head of the electorate of the United Kingdom. It does not, of course, extend to the whole kingdom. I note that, in the case of Scotland, the reduction applies separately to the regional councils and the district councils. We in Northern Ireland have a regional rate and a district rate. How are we to find out about the legislation relating to Northern Ireland? As we do not know whether the Province will be discriminated against, we are quite incapable, at this point, of forming an opinion as to whether we should support the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The matter to which he refers is one for the Secretary of State rather than the Chair. If the hon. Member is fortunate enough to catch my eye later, he may be able to put his question to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Heseltine: As the House knows, in 1976 the then Labour Government began to switch a growing proportion of the costs of local services on to the local ratepayer. That process was continued until last year. If, emerging from our consultation process, there is one thing on which most people agree, it is that reversal of the trend was necessary. This Bill brings about a significant reversal. It gives practical effect to the Government's decision that the central taxpayer should pay more than the local taxpayer pays.
In specific terms, that means that the bills for the coming year's charge must be reduced—but not so as to allow local authorities to indulge in another round of spending increases. Our determination is that the people should benefit. Accordingly, the Government have made a series of announcements explaining how the £4·3 billion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided in his Budget is to be used to help people directly. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities said last night in the debate on the money resolution, the financial memorandum to this Bill has to be read in the context of the proposals in the Bill and the proposal to change the community charge reduction scheme. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear, in winding up the Budget debate, that the £4·3 billion covers both the provisions of the Bill and the community charge reduction scheme changes. The Bill addresses the specific commitment to reduce the headline community charges set by local authorities by £140, or, when the charge is already set at less than £140, to reduce it to £0.
We estimate that, instead of an average gross community charge of £392 in England next year, the figure will be about £250. In other words, the average community charge in England will be reduced from £357 this year to £252 next year. In every local authority area, people will


face a lower headline charge than they face this year. The equivalent figures for Scotland are £306 and £253, and those for Wales are £232 and £120.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I apologise for intervening at such an early stage in my right hon. Friend's speech, but there is a point that I am sure he will want to clear up. In today's press, there is a report that councils will be covered for the reimbursement of £140 not on the standard community charge but simply on the normal community charge. Can my right hon. Friend refute that story? It is very damaging in Westminster and in other parts of London, but I am sure that people throughout the country will be concerned.

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Later in my speech I will demonstrate that the suggestion to which he has referred is unfounded.

Mr. Max Madden: As the Secretary of State was in the House during the debate on the money resolution last night, he will have heard a number of hon. Members, including myself ask the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to ensure that we would be told tonight what proportion of the £140 reduction will be enjoyed by those who are on rebate or on transitional relief. Will such people receive the whole £140, part of it, or none of it?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. I was indeed in the House last night, and I heard what my hon. Friend said. I can help the House further. If the existing rebate or reduction arrangements take an individual below the level at which he would pay the £140, we cannot make provision that would double the amount of assistance. To that extent, it is not possible, within the arrangements that we have made, to help further.
What we are trying to do in these schemes is to help people who have been particularly hard hit by the transition from the old rating system to the new community charge system. That is the purpose of the community charge reduction scheme. The new £140 reduction that the Bill provides brings the headline charge down to figures that are below or closer to the old rates the people would have paid.
My hon. Friend was asked about the number of people who would benefit from the arrangements that he was describing and he said that the figure in this current year would be about 8 million people and that he would come back to the House if he wished to add to that figure. I am pleased to take the House a stage further today, because, as a result of the arrangements that we are making and debating today, not 8 million people but 16 million people will be helped. If the House wishes to probe further these matters, which it might well wish to do, my hon. Friend will be pleased to deal with the detail when he replies to the debate.

Mr. David Blunkett: How is it then that on 17 January the figure given for those who would benefit from the new schemes was 18 million people? It was not 8 million people, as announced last night—it was 18 million people, and the Prime Minister pronounced on it himself.

Mr. Heseltine: The 8 million referred to the number of people who benefited before the £140 reduction to which the Bill relates. That figure has to be adjusted again to take account of the community charge reduction scheme additional announcements that my hon. Friend made, which takes the figure up to 16 million. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that those who at the moment are paying 20 per cent. of the poll tax because they are on benefit will in the end get £28 out of the Secretary of State's announcement, and that, when they have spent about £1,100 on VAT-rated goods, they will have paid out all that £28 and still have to carry on paying the extra 2·5 per cent?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman takes no account of the fact that many of the most essential things that such people buy are not VAT-rated in the first place. All that the hon. Gentleman shows is the wide range of schemes that already exists to help different categories of people depending on their needs.
As I explained to the House, the headline charge is, in many cases, further reduced by rebates or the community charge reduction scheme. It is only when all those calculations are made that people know what they are to pay. This year, the average net charge is about £275. Taking into account the improvements in the community charge reduction scheme announced last night, the net charge in Britain next year will be less than £175. That is significantly less than the average paid per adult in the last year of the rates.
I should stress one point on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor laid stress in his Budget. The substantial switch of costs to the centre is not a decision for this year alone. The Government intend the new balance to be sustainable in the future.
The five-clause Bill before the House is designed to implement the first phase of our longer-term strategy. I shall not take the House through it clause by clause; suffice it to say that it extends to England, Wales and Scotland and that, if it is enacted, it will have three broad effects.
First, it will provide that the community charges which authorities have set for 1991–92 are replaced the day after the Bill's enactment by new charges which are £140 lower. Councils will not need to meet to set the new charges, but they will be treated in all respects as if they were set by authorities in the usual way. Secondly, it will suspend charge payers' liability to pay any charges for 1991–92 until they receive a bill reflecting the new charges. Thirdly, my right hon. Friends and I will be empowered to pay grants to authorities to make good the loss of income resulting from the reduction in charges and to cover authorities' additional administrative costs arising as a consequence of the Bill.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State clarify the position on the standard community charge? Will the standard community charge be a multiple of the new individual community charge? As I see the Secretary of State nod, does that mean that there will be a substantial reduction in the standard community charge for some enormous second homes?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the beginning of the debate, he would have known that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr.


Tracey) raised exactly that point, and it so happens that this is precisely the moment in my speech when I wish to deal with it.
There is an incorrect report in The Times this morning that councils will not be compensated for the loss of income from standard community charges. In fact, grants will be paid to compensate authorities for loss of community charge income from all charge payers—that is, personal, standard and collective charge payers alike. I welcome this opportunity which my hon. Friend has given me to set the record straight.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does that mean that, in those authorities where the standard charge is a multiple of twice the personal charge, the authority will be reimbursed for twice the charge?

Mr. Heseltine: That is correct.
The charges that we have announced involve local authorities in rebilling. There was no alternative way of achieving our purpose. We could not have made a switch of funding of the size involved outside a proper Budget statement. The House and the wider financial community would have expected to be told how such a switch was to be financed. We could not have acted, either, until all local authorities had set their budgets. There are simply too many authorities which, if they had had any idea that there was more money coming, would have wanted to use it to increase their spending and not to help local people. We were not prepared to put up with that.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £140 reduction will also be available to local authorities and community charge payers next year? As Labour local authorities have been clearly setting the highest possible community charge that they can get away with this year, will my right hon. Friend confirm now that he will use his capping powers as ruthlessly as necessary to stop Labour authorities ripping off my constituents and those of all other hon. Members next year?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can confirm that we shall take what steps we think appropriate to prevent an explosion of local authority expenditure as a consequence of the generosity of the settlement that we have made today.
My hon. Friend's other point relates to our determination to keep the balance broadly in line. We have confirmed our intention to do that. Next year, it will probably be appropriate to do that through the aggregate exchequer finance arrangement as opposed to a specific legislative vehicle such as we are addressing today, but the upshot of it will be to preserve the balance broadly as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has described.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Secretary of State also keep the balance between a poll tax in Wolverhampton next year of approximately £275 and that in Wandsworth, where charge payers will pay nothing? My constituents would like to know who will pay for the social workers and teachers in Wandsworth while my constituents, with their many social problems, will have to pay up to £300.

Mr. Heseltine: There is a simple way to meet the hon. Gentleman's objective. If he wants the community charge level of Wandsworth, all he has to do is to vote

Conservative at the forthcoming election. I had not intended to make a divisive party point at this stage in my speech, but it is worth repeating that to vote Labour costs, on average, £50 across the country.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend also point out to Opposition Members that a great deal more central Government grant per head goes to the neighbouring Labour inner-London boroughs than comes to Wandsworth? One of the benefits of the Bill that he has not yet highlighted is the extent to which people receiving income support will benefit. The 20 per cent. put into income support is 20 per cent. of the national average community charge. For every council that comes in under the national average—and the Bill will help that to happen—such people will receive considerably more in income support than 20 per cent. of the national figure, and if the council comes in at zero, the whole amount will go into their pockets.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made a number of interesting points, and has reminded me of some interesting statistics. Wandsworth—a London borough—received £1,192 per adult, and then set a community charge of £137. Tower Hamlets received £1,862 per adult, and set a charge of £287. Hackney received £1,755, and set a charge of £462. Lambeth received £1,557, and set a charge of £590. If Labour Members want me to make comparisons, let me compare Wandsworth's £1,192 with Manchester's £1,170. Manchester set a charge of £432, while Wandsworth's charge was £137. Labour Membrs should think carefully before suggesting that there is no relationship between authorities' profligate spending patterns and the fact that they are Labour-controlled.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the House has heard enough to be convinced that the legislation is essential. We should make progress. We intend to secure the passage of the Bill and any appropriate regulations this week. We have already informed the House in detail of our intentions, and we are writing again to local authorities today, sending them copies of the draft regulations on billing and enforcement. Before the financial year begins, authorities should have all that they need to send out the revised bills. We have made it clear that we shall advance cash from non-domestic rates to compensate local authorities for the unavoidable delay in the collection of their community charge income.
I have been impressed by the determination evident in local government generally—and especially among those to whom I have spoken directly—to convey this excellent new arrangement to local people as quickly as possible. What they have told me destroys the arguments of those who say that, inevitably, no new bills will be issued before June. It would be unforgivable if local authorities now delayed issuing their bills to hide from the electorate the substantial help that the Government have given. I am confident that the great majority will want the new bills to be sent out very soon, and that that end will be achieved.
The Bill is as short as it is important. It helps people. It shifts the burden from local to central taxation. It is a constructive and decisive product of our local government review, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I do not often feel sorry for the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I confess that I felt a twinge of sympathy for him this evening. He could not quite conceal his embarrassment, which was bespoken by the brevity of his remarks in support of the Bill.
That embarrassment was partly as a result of the breathtaking cynicism of the measure that the right hon. Gentleman had to propose, and partly due to the extraordinary circumstances—an unprecedented guillotine motion. Mostly, however, it was a consequence of what the Bill, and the Secretary of State's role this evening, tell us about the right hon. Gentleman's part in the attempt to bring the poll tax fiasco to an end.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment stems from the fact that he is now required to present a Bill—in extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances—to implement a measure in whose formulation he really played no part. In this Government of faction and cabal, he was treated as an outsider by the Treasury-dominated group that decided that the Budget strategy should be completely distorted by the need to throw money at the poll tax problem. The Bill may be a Department of the Environment measure, but it was conceived and promoted in the Treasury—a Department that has no understanding of local government, and even less sympathy for it.
We must assume that the decision to promote the measure was made without consultation of the Secretary of State. Presumably even he would not easily have consented to legislation that would require him to stand on his head in quite so spectacular a fashion. It is, after all, less than three months since he came solemnly to the House to present his revenue support grant settlement.
That settlement was presented as the culmination of long and responsible consideration by the right hon. Gentleman. He had, he told us, made his judgment about how much of local government spending should be funded by central Government. He dismissed any suggestion that the settlement represented anything other than a prudent and accurate judgment of the amount that central Government should provide. Yet here we are, less than three months later, with the Secretary of State compelled by his Treasury colleagues to concede that his judgment was wrong—to the tune of a small matter of £4·25 billion. No wonder he seems more than a little discomfited.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I shall give way in due course; I want to develop this point first.
Nor can the Secretary of State get away with the excuse that he may want to make: that he inherited the revenue support grant from his predecessor, and has recast the settlement according to his own long-held ideas and principles. The settlement that he announced in January did not, after all, come out of the blue. It was very much in line with earlier settlements, which had made a point of reducing the proportion of local government finance to be funded by central Government from that inherited from the preceding Labour Government—a steady reduction over the whole period from 62 per cent. to 35 per cent.
The Minister who initiated that long, consistent and steady process of disengagement——

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: Let me deal first with what the Secretary of State falsely said in his opening remarks. The proportion of local government finance provided by central Government was the same at the beginning of the last Labour Administration as it was at the end: 62 per cent. There was indeed a bobble upwards in the middle to about 65 per cent., but the level remained stable throughout that Administration. The real reduction began when the Secretary of State of the day decided to initiate the process that culminated in central Government funding of only 35 per cent.
Who was that Secretary of State? Who began that process? None other than the present incumbent. The Bill that the Secretary of State has been forced to present to the House today not only runs counter to a 12-year-old pattern set by the present Government; it runs counter to the whole process launched by the right hon. Gentleman himself. There is just a little inconsistency for him to explain away.

Mr. Heseltine: I know that figures are always an embarrassment to the hon. Gentleman, but the fact is that, in 1976, the proportion was 66 per cent. It went down by about 2 per cent. a year until the present Government were elected, and, broadly speaking, it did not go down much more than that throughout the 1980s. The switch began in 1976. Can the hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. Gould: I note with interest—and so, I am sure, did the House—that the Secretary of State took great care not to contradict my assertion, which, for the sake of those who failed to grasp it the first time, was that the level of central Government support for local government remained stable at 62 per cent. throughout the term of that Labour Government. The real reduction began in 1979 and reached a low point of 35 per cent. in the right hon. Gentleman's revenue support grant settlement this year.

Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman's opening diatribe completely ignores the fact that the £4 billion in the Budget, which will be enacted by this legislation, is intended to reduce the charge to charge payers, not to add to resources for higher spending. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, if the money had been made available before many local authorities had set their budgets, they would have used it to increase spending.

Mr. Gould: What I find interesting about that intervention—although it had no bearing on my argument with the Secretary of State—is that it points to an absolute and unavoidable necessity. If, by any misfortune, this Government are still running things next year, as this trick cannot be turned a second time, the only way to avoid the trap that the Secretary of State has set himself is the solution offered from his own Back Benches—universal capping. That would, in turn, require the Secretary of State to stand on his head all over again. He has gone on record time and time again as against capping and in favour of accountability yet, once again, he has contradicted himself in the space of just a couple of weeks.

Dr. Keith Hampson: rose——

Mr. Gould: When the Secretary of State announced his community charge reduction scheme, he assured us that it was the last word in making the poll tax fair and workable.


It is no doubt true that a scheme designed to win the Ribble Valley by-election looked a little less attractive and persuasive when Ribble Valley was duly lost. However, it is still a remarkable volte face for the Secretary of State to come to the House so soon to admit by implication that he was wrong and to propose what is, in effect, a general election reduction scheme. To judge by its immediate reception, the new scheme looks as certain as its predecessor to be unsuccessful in its chosen aim.
If the timing of the measure is embarrassing for, the Secretary of State, his embarrassment pales into insignificance by comparison with the upheaval that the Bill has inflicted on local government. Virtually every poll tax bill had been calculated, many had been printed and a large number had been dispatched. I have received mine, and I am sure that many hon. Members have also received theirs. The consequence of this last-minute reversal is that 35 million poll tax bills will have to be recalculated, and the millions of bills awaiting dispatch will have to be shredded. There has been nothing more damaging to the Government's reputation than the sight of bales of millions of poll tax bills waiting to be destroyed—a sight that we have seen on our television screens over the past couple of days.
What drove the Government to reverse the position to which they had adhered for 12 years and to inflict such chaos on local government'? The only conclusion that we can safely reach is that we are dealing with a Government who are in a blue funk. They are now desperate and cynical in equal measure. They are so desperate that they will clutch at desperate measures. They are ready to try to save their skin at any cost. The cost is not borne by the Government because—as they never tire of telling us—they have no money. The money that they are throwing at the poll tax problem—all £4·25 billion of it—is not theirs. It is the taxpayers' pockets that are being raided.
If there is any justice, there will be a cost to the Government, and they will pay that cost. The whole shabby and disreputable exercise will be carried through at the cost of what shreds remain of the Government's tattered reputation for competence and prudence. Are they competent? To say that they could not run a whelk stall is to insult those in my constituency who continue to run such businesses successfully. If the Government were running a public company, the shareholders would have sacked them long ago before calling in the fraud squad. If they were in local government, whose fortunes they presume to treat in such a cavalier fashion, they would certainly have been surcharged, bankrupted and disqualified.
We should not mince words. On the evidence of this passage of events, we are dealing with a bunch of craven incompetents whose only saving grace is that they are so bad even at incompetence that they have been rumbled straight away.
Are the Government a prudent Government who look after public finance? That can produce nothing but a horse laugh.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Gould: The Government have generously agreed to cover the cost of their bungling. Even they did not dare to ask the poll tax payer to pick up the tab, but we have been given only a blithe estimate that the exercise will cost a mere trifle—just £60 million. Even that little bauble seems

certain to be an underestimate on the basis of evidence given to me over the past few days by local authorities, which are aghast at what the Bill will mean to their costs, administration and financial position.
I should like to give some examples. Birmingham says that if—as it will be compelled to do—it must use different software, the printing and dispatch of new bills will cost £100,000 in additional administrative costs, and it will suffer a loss in cash flow of £1·25 million. Newcastle estimates £200,000 as the cost of new calculations and dispatch of bills and a further loss of £700,000 in loss of interest. Peterborough says that its administrative costs will rise by between £50,000 and £100,000 and it will lose £200,000 in interest in one month alone.
The £60 million—unacceptable though it is as the price tag of the Government's folly—will not, on that basis, go very far. I want to know, either from the Secretary of State of from his Minister of State, what calculation lies behind the blithe estimate of £60 million. On what basis was it calculated? How confident is the Secretary of State that he knows the true figure, or is it just one more example of a stab in the dark by a Government whose claims to prudent management must now be met with derision and contempt?

Mr. James Paice: The hon. Gentleman has spent 15 minutes telling us his views of the Government. Will he, at any stage, tell us why he is opposing the Bill? Is he against the idea of reducing the bills by £140? If he were to have his way and the Bill were defeated, how would he answer the accusation from charge payers that he would have cost them £140 each?

Mr. Gould: It never ceases to amaze me just how out of touch some Conservative Members are. We have here the luminaries of the Tory Back Benches, people who allegedly devote their professional lives to keeping abreast of public matters——

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose——

Hon. Members: A luminary?

Mr. Gould: I have not finished demolishing Tory luminaries yet.
We have here luminaries who profess to be abreast of all matters of public concern, but they do not yet know what any idiot could have read in today's newspapers. We are not opposing the Bill—we do not intend to stand in the way of a welcome reduction in the poll tax burden—but we reserve the right to explore the cynicism and disreputable nature of the Bill itself.
It must be recognised that the £60 million fleabite is of little consequence when compared to what the poll tax has already cost, and when we look at the start-up costs and the admitted additional administrative costs per year. The Minister of State is on record as conceding that it will cost £300 million additionally each year.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: We must look at the burden of the lower-than-forecast collection level, which runs at £1·4 billion, and at the sweeteners already announced by the Secretary of State, which amount to £5 billion or £6


billion. We now add £4·25 billion from VAT. No wonder the Secretary of State can pretend that £60 million does not matter.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I give way to the hon. Gentleman to reward him for simple persistence.

Mr. Hughes: The important point about the Bill, which we shall pass tonight, is that it gives us a clear idea, not only for this year, but for the future, of how many billion pounds the new scheme is designed to raise. To help us understand what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is saying on behalf of the Opposition, will he tell the House how many billion pounds his scheme is designed to raise? We shall then know what size of bill people will get.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman talks about the House becoming clear by the end of the debate precisely how the scheme is to work. I look forward to that clarity. My constituents in Dagenham will be keen to know precisely how many of them will get the £140 reduction that they have been promised. There has never been any mystery about our assertion. The Secretary of State may have changed his mind overnight, but we have always been clear that the balance between central and local government spending has been rigged by the Government and has gone to an extreme that even the present Administration now have to recognise must be corrected.
The£13 billion or£14 billion now thrown at the poll tax is not money that is being spent on a great national project or to improve the quality of life of the people of this country. It is money spent solely and sordidly on saving the Government's skin. Do not let me hear again Conservative Members claiming to be prudent or responsible in the management of public resources.
The irony is that, like so much else about the poll tax, the Bill does not even deliver what it promises. Only half—perhaps not even half—of those who have been promised the reduction of £140 will receive it. Those who receive rebates or who qualify under the community charge reduction scheme will find that their reductions are far less. I do not blame a Government who can make a mistake and then correct it in 24 hours—a mistake of only 100 per cent.
It was a mistake that led the Minister of State to tell us last night, less than 24 hours ago, that only 8 million people would benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. The Secretary of State corrected him today and said that the figure was 16 million. I do not blame an Administration who have such difficulty with figures for being unable to tell us precisely how many people will get the £140. Nevertheless, it is a matter of abiding interest to my constituents. They would dearly like to know the answer, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's answer later.
It is characteristic of the poll tax that those who are most certain of the benefit of the full £140 are those at the top of the income scale. The benefit is worth £274·50 to someone paying top rate income tax. Those at the bottom will benefit to the maximum of only £28, and many of them will receive even less. There is no justice in the famous flat-rate principle, which did so much to discredit the poll

tax. The flat-rate principle allows the people of Wandsworth to pay nothing. Whatever happened to the idea that everyone should contribute something? That principle allows the people of Wandsworth to pay nothing, while others get the same £140 and still have to pay £300 a year.
Is it not typical of the Government that, when they filched billions of pounds from local government, they used it to finance income tax cuts to benefit the well-off? Now that they recognise that they have made a terrible mistake which must be corrected, and now that they have unwillingly decided that they must pay back the money, who do they expect to pay it? They expect it to be not those who benefited from income tax cuts, but the ordinary family, who are hard hit by the increase in VAT.
If the money is available, why is it not used to abolish the 20 per cent. contribution? Can the Secretary of State think of a better way? I believe that on this issue, his heart may be in the right place, but I suspect that, again, he has been outgunned by the Treasury. Is there any better way of spending the available money than to remove the misery and despair of people who are terrified by poll tax bills that they have no hope of paying because they have no income with which to pay them?

Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend share my understanding of the reply that I received earlier from the Secretary of State on the flat-rate principle? Not only will the poorest people in the land receive £28 under the new scheme while the better-off obtain £140, but a very wealthy person who owns a substantial second home will obtain £420 from the scheme.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention shows that, try as they may to wriggle off the poll tax hook, the principle of the poll tax remains to dog the Government. Wherever they go, the flat-rate principle, which the Secretary of State dare not abandon because of the uproar on the Conservative Benches, distorts everything he does in reforming the poll tax.
The real flaw in the Bill is not that it is confused, ill thought out, unfair and chaotic, but that it tries to prop up the poll tax rather than to abolish it. We could be debating today a short Bill which would ensure that this year's poll tax bills would be the last. The Government turned down our offer of co-operation on such a Bill. Instead, we have a Bill that does no more than offer a sop or a bribe, with no guarantee that it is the prelude to the abolition of a tax whose manifest and manifold deficiencies have made the distortions necessary.
The Government are so confused and divided that they cannot decide whether the poll tax is eventually to go. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) spoke the truth—freed from the burdens of office, he had that unaccustomed luxury on the Conservative Benches. He spoke a truth recognised by millions when he said that what is known of the proposals of the Secretary of State can properly be described as "son of poll tax". He pointed to a Government who have lost faith in their own creation, but who dare not dispatch it for good.
In the meantime, we have a shoddy, shabby and cynical Bill. It is a measure designed to mask the stench of the poll tax rather than to bury its corpse. We regard the Bill as deeply disreputable. We shall seek to amend it so that it more nearly serves the interests of the 90 per cent. of public opinion that now wants to see the back of the poll tax.
We regard the relief offered to reduce the burden of the poll tax for some of those who have been driven to despair by its unfairness as no more than a down payment. It is a payment on account on the way to the complete abolition of that hated tax. This is the down payment, but the full price will be paid by the Tory Government at the next general election. That is where the poll tax bill will finally be paid. It is now clear that we must look to that general election and to a Labour victory before we have any chance of abolishing the poll tax.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The Bill, with the other reductions that have recently been announced, will reduce the average community charge payment in England to about £170. So low now are the charges, that no one-person or two-person households will pay more than £2 more than they paid under the old rating system if they have not moved house. The strength of the Bill is that it is a small part of a far wider exercise which is designed to look throughout the local government system—not just at the payment issue or at the method of raising funds, but at services. I commend the Bill and will support it tonight.
The low level of the charge reminds one of the benefits of it. Before there are howls of disbelief from the Opposition, let me point out some of them. For the first time in the parliamentary memory of many of us, we gave the elector full knowledge of what his local authority was doing by making the elector contribute to that local authority expenditure. Putting one's hand in one's pocket—paying for a round at the bar—concentrates the mind marvellously. As a result of that change, local authority budgets were trimmed, sometimes dramatically—there can be no argument about that because that is the truth. The savings were not made in terms of the services given to those who need and deserve them, but by authorities undertaking internal cost reductions.
In my local authority, right down in the county of Devon, well known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the electors were able to consider what was happening at county hall and in the district councils. When the community charge arrived in Devon, the economic expenditure of those authorities was low, but it was still possible for them to make large and proper expenditure cuts internally.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend may be being a little unfair to the Opposition: my experience in London is that Conservative authorities cut administration while Labour councils cut services.

Miss Nicholson: Alas, that is so. Many Conservative councils have brought in outside experts to study their budgets to find ways in which they can be trimmed internally. We should not forget the magnitude of councils. They have swelled in recent years, rather like a queen bee fed on special pollen and honey. In this case, the pollen and honey came from the taxpayer's pocket.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Nicholson: No, I shall continue for a little longer if I may.
It would be foolish and inaccurate for Opposition Members——

Mr. Fraser: Tell us about Somerset.

Miss Nicholson: I shall not give way.
It would be foolish and inaccurate for the Opposition to pretend, as they seek to do for the purposes of political debate, that councils are perfect organisations that never overspend and do not put 17 per cent. of their education budgets towards the cost of their staff in county hall.
Another benefit of the community charge is the reintroduction of accountability to local people. That had been lost for many years, particularly under Labour Governments. I believe that accountability is a great and continuing benefit of community charge.
Given that the community charge is so low, why do we not retain it? Many of my colleagues would like to do just that. I believe that there are two good reasons why we should not retain the community charge and I intend to demonstrate that those key weaknesses are even larger and are inherent in the alternative proposals offered by the Opposition.
The first weakness is that the system of collection is too expensive and intrusive. Even the most sophisticated official has found it extremely tempting to acquire more knowledge about the individual elector than he should have done in pursuit of his duty to collect the community charge. Some councils might be in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1984—some are before the Data Protection Registrar now. We must remember the problems of such intrusiveness when we consider the Opposition's proposals.
The second weakness of the community charge is that its gearing bore down too heavily on the individual. Some bills rose greatly, largely under Labour councils that may have been indulging in inappropriate expenditure under current guidelines. I hope that the local government review will root out that problem. It is difficult to see why a special pressure group such as black lesbians in Newcastle should be taught karate, paid for by taxpayers' money. That was unusual. Perhaps the local government review will throw light on what local government does best and where the weaknesses of the current system inhibit decision making to such a degree that it becomes so expensive that it might best be scaled down or scrapped. Despite the current low level of the community charge, I find it difficult to argue that it should be retained, although I accept that it offers good benefits.
The community charge is too difficult and expensive to collect because people move around so much. Every year, 40 per cent. of the population of Islington moves. Given the behaviour of Islington council, one is not surprised at that. If I lived in Islington, I would move as fast as possible to get away from the enormity of the indiscretions committed with local taxpayers' money.
I believe that community charge collection could have been done economically had, we had identity cards, enforcement and a single software provision from the centre. The privacy issue, however, is difficult to counter. The Labour party has complained bitterly about what the Government have suggested, but the plans proposed by the Opposition do not bear scrutiny.
The Liberal democrats have advocated a local income tax, but the Labour party has recognised that that is administratively impracticable and could produce enormous local variations. I agree with the Labour party that it would be a difficult tax to introduce. I shall not go into the detail of my arguments against that tax, as it is simply


a non-runner because the Liberal Democrats will be unable to persuade the two large parties to adopt that policy.
The electorate should be alerted to the danger in the Labour party's plans. The Labour party is offering a mixture of ideas. It proposes a return to the old rating system, but the Opposition will not recognise that the gearing of that system bears even more heavily on the minority of the electorate than the community charge gearing. It is so atrociously unfair that it is difficult to countenance the return of that system. I find it difficult to believe, however, that the Labour party would care about that unfairness. It would probably believe that such a change would not affect its voters. It would not mind about that small minority if it felt that it could get away with it.
But the Opposition say that the new proposals must be linked with the famous words "the ability to pay". That is where the Labour party gets into difficulty. The only way in which one can focus on the ability to pay other than through the type of proposals that we have on the household tax, which are a rough and ready calculation of how many people there are in a household combined with the rebates that people may receive if they are on income support, would swiftly become unacceptable to the public once they understood what lay behind the change.
Labour's paper states that computerisation of the Inland Revenue
offers the possibility that means tested rebates … could be replaced by an automatic calculation of liability
and that that
could be an important step towards a much wider reform, encompassing the benefit system as well as taxation … offering the prospect of a single tax benefit transaction between the individual and government".
With breathtaking gall, or with an innocent lack of understanding of modern technology that demonstrates the Opposition's unfitness for government—one can hardly believe that they are so naive—the paper continues by saying that the new system
protects confidentiality and civil rights
and
is forward looking in terms of general taxation".
Of course, it is nothing of the sort. It is a destruction of civil rights and an utter and total destruction of individual privacy, because the only way to focus upon that famous and saleable quality, "ability to pay" is—as the Labour party document properly proposed, although it was improper as regards confidentiality and citizens' rights—by creating one large, Government-controlled computerised record on each citizen in the land. The Opposition do not know—because they do not have the knowledge and they do not even bother to find out—that the Inland Revenue is set up solely for the purpose of collecting inland revenue. It does not contain the number of one's house, where one lives, who one is, how many children one has, one's income, one's stocks and shares, what sort of car one has, and all the other bits and pieces that are needed if one is to tailor raising money for local income to what is so laughably called, "ability to pay".

Mr. David Bellotti: Is the hon. Lady aware that the PAYE system in the Inland Revenue offices contains the names, addresses and postal codes of everyone liable to pay it? If she does realise that, and as she

quoted the phrase, "ability to pay" in her earlier comments, does she not realise that a local income tax added to the national taxation system would be easy to collect and would meet the other requirements that she mentioned earlier? Is she aware that all the required information exists and that such a proposal could be introduced within six months?

Miss Nicholson: I do not deny that such information exists on computer records—I know it does and I am well aware of those systems. I argue against a local income tax for slightly different reasons. I believe that we are too small a country for a local income tax to work. It would produce large distortions in people's movements and inequalities for people living one side of a border if there were large differences in demands for local income tax from authorities on the other side of the border. I know that the information exists, but I do not believe that local taxation is a feasible system.
Regarding the other proposals from the largest Opposition party, my comment is not that the information does not exist—indeed it does. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) introduced a change in married women's income tax—which he promoted so heavily, and for which I honour him—that required matching tax points for married women with those of their husbands. Certainly the information exists. However, at the heart of the confidentiality which exists for the individual in the United Kingdom is the determination that the different systems should not be merged—the determination that tax, benefits and everything else known by Government about an individual should not be put on one computer record because then the destruction of personal confidentiality would be complete, and state control in place for ever.
If the Labour party really means what it stated in that paper about such a system offering civil rights protection and confidentiality, may I point out that, before Labour brings it in, it would have to introduce both a personal confidentiality Bill and a Bill that placed a value on information. Labour would have to introduce a sea change of legislation through the House which would take for ever and would be unique to the United Kingdom.
Thus, the Opposition may say that they can put aside the community charge—nothing is easier than to tear up an existing piece of legislation—and immediately put in its place something that is fair, is related to the ability to pay and fulfils the contradictory proposals that I have read out from their document on the community charge and local government, to do so they would in practice have to go through many years of debate and the individual would still be at large risk of Government control.
Time is needed for any genuine alterations to the complexities of local government finance. That is why I believe that the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have given that time properly. They have given time for their own proposals to come to fruition and for consultation and they have given time by reducing the community charge.
When we talk about mechanisms for reducing costs, I remind the House that value added tax has two large benefits which have not yet been identified. First, it is lower, as a proportion of equivalised disposable income, for retired people than for working people, so it is good for the retired and the elderly. Secondly, the United Kingdom has a total value added tax—final, private, consumption


expenditure as an annual expenditure percentage rate—that is the second lowest in the European Community. That is because one quarter of value added taxable goods are zero-rated and, on top of that, there are exemptions. No other European Community country offers that, and it gives us the second lowest average of the entire Community.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is critical of raising value added tax, surely cannot have looked at those figures and seen the extreme slowness with which we are pursuing our desired objective of shifting from tax on income to tax on expenditure.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Lady aware that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be very much in favour of bringing our VAT rates into line with the rest of Europe? In the end, that would also involve putting VAT on some essentials such as food. Does she support such a move?

Miss Nicholson: Again, I think that the former Chancellor's words may have been paraphrased inaccurately to reflect his speech. There is no possibility of bringing value added tax in line throughout Europe, because it is as varied as it is interesting. It is unique to each country. There is a 33 per cent. difference between the bottom and top band of value added tax, which would suggest that there will never be one VAT band for the Community in 1992, or whenever. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies again what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said.

Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during her excellent speech. Does she agree that there is a certain appeal about value added tax, because the millions of foreign tourists that flood into the United Kingdom on holidays and shopping sprees will now contribute more to local government finance, as we do when we go on holiday abroad? That is important. Our system has to be fair and affordable. We are making it affordable at the moment to help people through this difficult time. Does she not agree that we shall produce a fair system?

Miss Nicholson: I agree with my hon. friend that the millions of incoming tourists will enhance our local government tax-raising capacity by spending more, especially since tourists will spend more on the sort of items that take them into the higher bands of expenditure. It is worth remembering that people have to spend £13,500 a year before the additional 2·5 per cent. would affect their expenditure. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that tourists will contribute more.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Bill with his usual intellectual rigour, clarity of expression and—[Interruption.] I am fascinated that Her Majesty's Opposition, having had their own cover blown wide open by me, have not even come back on my central point of attack on their proposals—I am bound to think that the admitted deficiencies in our education system are being reflected in their lack of numeracy. Is it possible that Opposition Members have not read their own document? Is it even more possible—or even probable—that they cannot add it up?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown an openness to the House and the electorate in embarking on various stages of consultation as he develops these

matters that affect us all domestically and locally. I believe that that true consultation will be a hallmark of this Prime Minister's Administration. The electorate will welcome it, just as we welcome the Bill tonight.

Mr. Dave Nellist: There is a certain pleasure in seeing the rout of the Government over the past eight days. Eight days is, indeed, a long time in politics, because it was only last Monday that the Prime Minister spoke to Tory Back Benchers, explaining that the poll tax was "uncollectable" because of the number of people not paying it and the courts being overloaded. On Tuesday, the Chancellor made his announcement about "shifting finance". On Thursday, we had a classic understatement from the Secretary of State for the Environment that "people are not persuaded" that the poll tax is fair. Last night, the right hon. Member for Blaby, (Mr. Lawson) who made one of his rare appearances in the House to collect his pocket money, told us all about "Son of Poll Tax". If the Government stay in office, we may well get what a Hammer horror producer might introduce as "Poll Tax II: Return of the Undead", so much is the poll tax still part of the thinking of the Government.
Those of us who have been most directly involved in the anti-pool tax campaign take a certain vicarious pleasure in witnessing the past eight days of Government by the headless chicken tendency. We now have an unprecedented "24-hour Bill" in the Chamber, which will pass through Parliament in just one week.
As was suggested earlier, what is happening has not passed unnoticed in my learning curve. When we have a Labour Government, I hope that Conservative Members will find no cause to complain if I venture to suggest to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they can abolish the House of Lords in a week or introduce a "General Nationalisation of Industry Bill" in one night. Such measures could also be applied to Scotland and we could give a future Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the general power to nationalise. I advise Conservative Members that they will see in the months ahead what we have learnt tonight.
However, the real victory does not belong to tonight's debate—it belongs to the millions of people outside this place who refused to be browbeaten or intimidated and who participated in what an article in tonight's Evening Standard calls the
most successful civil defiance campaign in living memory".
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has said that 14 million people have either stopped or never started paying the poll tax. On Tuesday last week "Newsnight" put the figure at 15·7 million people—I presume that Scotland has at last been included in the figures. On Monday, the Prime Minister said that the figure was 18·5 million people. That achieved what many of us were told was impossible, especially by the press. It forced the Government to make a humiliating U-turn before a general election. I have no doubt that, in drafting the Bill, the Tories had a general election in mind.
The Bill legitimises non-payment for the next three or four months. In a written answer on 19 March, the Secretary of State stated:
The Bill will suspend the liability of charge-payers to pay any 1991–92 charges until a charge bill has been received reflecting the reduced charges."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 49.]


That answer means that people need not pay at least until May, or perhaps even until August. The Government have at last legalised non-payment.
As I have said, victory belongs to those millions of people. It is not a victory against the poll tax but, as I know from personal discussions during the past eight days, it is a catharsis for all the Government's attacks and intimidations on ordinary people in the past 12 years. I refer to their attacks on the miners and on other communities, to the hospital and school closures, to what happened at GCHQ and to other unions, and to the privatisations. The past eight days are a sweet revenge on the Government for all those past attacks.
The Bill and the Secretary of State's review will result in an alteration to the law after the challenge to that law took place outside Parliament. It was ever thus. The right of people to vote for Members of this place, the right to join a union or to take industrial action were first established outside Parliament and later legitimised by the passage of legislation or by bad laws being repealed. That is what we are seeing beginning tonight—the repeal of a bad law because of a challenge from outside Parliament.
Unlike the charges that I and others have faced from Conservative Members, there was never what was so perversely pictured by Conservative Members—there was never any intention to widen the battle or to generalise law breaking. I challenge any hon. Member to prove the opposite. Those who have not paid their poll tax or who delayed paying it have not in any way encouraged general lawlessness. They simply wanted to see the repeal of the poll tax legislation, and we are seeing the start of that tonight.
If the Bill is enacted, the reduction of £140 in bills will have been brought about by individual sacrifice. I should like to mention by name some of the people who have made sacrifices so that they are part of the record. They include Brian Wright, Pat Westmore and John Ayes. They are the three people who have gone to prison in England for not paying the poll tax—only two days ago in the case of John Aves.

Mr. Roger King: Good.

Mr. Nellist: You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a Conservative Member has said, "Good." Presumably he is the same hon. Member who voted for the Tories to change the law in November 1988 so that no one in Scotland could go to prison for being in debt. That can happen only in England and Wales.
I pay tribute also to those who lost their liberty through arrest during the past two years, most notably a year ago at Trafalgar square. I pay tribute also to my constituent, Bob Pheelan, who died outside Coventry magistrates court after being forcibly removed by the police during a poll tax hearing last year.
After what has happened and the passage of the Bill, there will be a reduction of £140 in the poll tax. But what would have happened if we had all paid or tried to pay the poll tax? Many millions of people would have had to go into debt, take their cars off the streets, cancel their holidays or deny things to the kids. We would not have had the extra transitional relief that was given in recent months, or the relief that the Government have offered to millions of families in the past 24 hours. There would have

been no review and no climb-down. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) would still be ensconced in No. 10 Downing street. Those who told us that by not paying our bills we were increasing other people's poll taxes will have to realise that by not paying our bills we have reduceed everybody's poll tax by £140.
The Secretary of State has said that there is "no other way" than the way that he has chosen. He is almost resurrecting "TINA" to justify what he has done. He has said that there was "no other way" to achieve the reduction other than by raising VAT. I shall suggest another way to him in view of the answers that he and his Department have given me this week. They provided the figures to prove it. The right hon. Gentleman could have cancelled the debts of all the local authorities in this country and relieved them of more than £6,000 million a year in interest charges alone, which could have reduced the poll tax by £200 per person.
If the Secretary of State thinks that that is not possible, I refer him to the figures that he gave me on 19 March about the exact amount of local authority debt. A year ago, his Department gave me the figures on the amount of interest charges paid by local authorities each year. If the right hon. Gentleman were to cancel those debts, it would have the additional welcome effect, even for Conservative Members, of reducing every pound of rent paid by council tenants—by 27 per cent. in the shire counties and by 34 per cent. in the metropolitan authority areas. That is the percentage of rent that passes immediately out of the back door of the council buildings on debt interest charges.
Some Conservative Members may say that that policy is impossible, but they would have said that this Bill was impossible just two or three weeks ago. I must advise them, however, that debt cancellation is a regular tool of this Government. In a reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) on 13 March, the Minister showed how £15 billion-worth of debt was cancelled—£3 billion for British Telecom £1·7 billion for the new towns £4 billion for British Steel and £5 billion for the water companies—to ensure that the Government's mates in the City had a better deal on privatisation.
In a press release the Government said that the average community charge or poll tax after the Bill would be £252. If they cancelled debt they could have brought it down by a further £100 per head—in other words, to £152. They admitted on 26 February to the Tory Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) that that is what the poll tax would have been if they had kept the rate support grant at the same rate since 1979 when they took office, instead of cutting over £57 billion from local council support in the last 10 years.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Nellist: I am afraid that I cannot give way, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
Why are the Government in retreat? It is certainly not because they have seen the error of their ways or realised the injustice and unfairness of the poll tax. They have not even offered to reinstate the social security cuts, the axing of benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds, or the ending of housing benefit in certain areas, which has hit many of my constituents even more than the poll tax.
I vividly remember accusing the right hon. Member for Finchley for her treatment of a 33-year-old widow in Coventry who had lost £25 a week because of the axing of


school meals for her four children and the cuts in housing benefit. Cuts in minimum wages, maternity grants and health and safety will not be restored. The difference was that, while we had to co-operate in our own robbery by going to the post office and paying over the money owed to the council, 18·5 million people not only said no, but had a framework in the Federation of Anti-Poll Tax Unions, which allowed battle to be joined and won against the Tories.
Those who said that that was impossible must realise that millions have crossed a barrier in the last 12 months. They remember what a famous American president said at his inauguration ceremony:
the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Millions realised that, if they did not pay a civil debt, the Government would be forced into the most humiliating retreat. It will not finish now. If the Chancellor can cancel £870 million of corporation tax in a full year by reducing the tax from 35 per cent. to 33 per cent. and backdating the cut to 1 April last year, we can demand that poll tax payers who went into debt to pay to pay their poll tax should get the same alleviation from this year's bills as the Tories are prepared to give off next year's hardship.[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) reminds me that people in Scotland ought to receive compensation for the previous year's poll tax.
If the Government can cancel debts for their friends in Rover, Rolls-Royce, Harland and Wolff, British Telecom, the electricity and water undertakings, and so on, they can cancel the outstanding debt of the people who are facing prosecution for not paying their poll tax. The Secretary of State has said that he will continue to enforce payment. Do Tory Members realise that that means that 18·5 million people face court proceedings? According to information given to me by the Department, as at 31 December 2·2 million people had been summonsed, 77,585 had turned up in court, and 9,785 hours of court time had been taken up.
The Prime Minister has said that the courts are overloaded. What will he say if the Government try to prosecute another 15 million people? Where will they put all the people if seizure by bailiffs and deductions from wages and benefits do not work, as will be the case? Will they send them to prison? Do they not understand that there are already 45,000 people in prisons which were built to hold 43,000? There is no way the Government could put 15 million more people in prison, and even if they could, do they not realise that it costs £380 per week to keep a person in prison? That should be compared to the amount owed in poll tax.
The position is not getting better. Only 10 days ago the Audit Commission said that in the shire counties only 82 per cent. were paying the poll tax, in the metropolitan counties 73 per cent., in outer London 77 per cent. and in inner London 66 per cent. Collection is dropping like a stone.
When the Tories had their leadership contest in November, people stopped paying because all three candidates said that they would abolish the poll tax. When the Government announced the introduction of the Bill last week, people stopped paying in droves. Let the Government ask any local authority treasurer if they want to find out what the position is. It can only get worse, because the Government are legitimising non-payment for the next three months at least.
Under the Bill, the Government will be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are supposed to feel grateful for the increase

in VAT. According to an article in "Economic Trends" in May 1990, the poorest 10 per cent. in the country spend 9·2 per cent. of their disposable income on VAT, compared to 5·7 per cent. for the richest 10 per cent. The Library has worked out for me that, with the increase of 2·5 per cent. in VAT, those percentages will become 10·8 and 6·6. Again, the poorest will pay so that the richest can benefit. That will not go down well.
We should have had not this Bill but a measure immediately to abolish the poll tax. I and millions of people welcomed the motion put before the House by my party on 13 March. That was the clearest statement ever that our real alternative is the abolition of the poll tax.
The Government are in retreat. On the middle east they said that there should be no ceasefire until there was agreement on all the terms. Those involved in the anti-poll tax movement should follow the Government's advice. They should seek the complete abolition of the poll tax, an amnesty for those facing court proceedings, and compensation for those who tried to pay their poll tax.
We must seek an answer to the real question put by parents today from Tory Warwickshire. I do not see any right hon. or hon. Members from Warwickshire in the Chamber. Those parents came to appeal to hon. Members not to agree to anything which would allow capping to remain or insufficient funding of local authority services. The parents told me today that in Warwickshire, which has been a Tory shire for 100 years, pre-school education is under threat and they face the closure of homes for the elderly, the closure of day centres for people with learning difficulties, and curtailment of youth services. That is not in a Labour inner-city London borough but in a Tory shire county.
The main lesson that the people have learned over the past three years in Scotland and the past two years in England and Wales, epitomised by the climb-down of the Government, is that if they struggle they can win. They can force concessions and even beat back the confident Tory Government. That knowledge will be absorbed not only on the poll tax but by those facing hospital closures. school closures, factory closures or redundancy. They will realise that if they get off their knees and stand up they can beat the Tories.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members are seeking to speak. I appeal for shorter speeches, so that I may call all those hon. Members.

Mr. Simon Burns: I trust that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will forgive me if I do not follow his unreconstructed approach to life. His was the sort of speech with which the late Enver Hoxha would have been pleased, but I suspect that it would not play all that well with the Leader of the Opposition. Listening to the sheer horror of some of his ideas about what he would like a future Labour Government to enact sent shivers down the spines of not only his right hon. Friend but all my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is not in the Chamber. I wanted to congratulate him on spinning out for 25 minutes a speech that basically said little. I knew that he was in serious


trouble when he started recycling the jokes that he made to the House 13 days ago during the Supply day debate initiated by the Labour party on the community charge.
Only the most churlish of people will not welcome the £140 reduction in community charge bills throughout England. It is to be welcomed, because it will mean that the bill of every community charge payer in the country will be slashed. I believe—I have never made any bones about it—that the principle behind the community charge was right. I genuinely believe that everyone who uses local authority services should make some contribution to the provision of those services. Regrettably, the community charge was made unacceptable by the level of bill imposed on far too many people for the provision of those services. That is why it was necessary to produce a Bill of this nature. I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment on the way in which they have acted to reduce people's bills. My right hon. Friends will bring genuine help to everyone in England and correspondingly in Scotland and Wales.
The Government have identified a problem which has been apparent to all—the level of community charge imposed by the vast majority of local authorities. The Government listened to the arguments and decided to take action. Several Opposition Members have criticised the fact that the Bill is proceeding through the House in one day. If we had not made it do so, we would have been criticised for not taking decisive action when it was needed.
Some Opposition Members said that we should have introduced the Bill two, three or four weeks ago. If we had done that, local authorities would have known what we intended to do before they set their community charges, and would simply have hiked up their spending to thwart the change that is bringing the benefit to people.

Mr. Wilson: As he is on the chronology of these matters, and for the benefit of those who read the debate, the hon. Gentleman will wish to place on record his proud membership of the Committee which considered the Local Government Finance Bill and the fact that he supported every dot and comma of the Bill. All the points made by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and all the other Tory Members who are now being held to account were spelt out to them in Committee. Will he confirm that?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was disappointed when he left the Chamber about 15 minutes ago, because, having read the newspaper article that he wrote in a Sunday Scottish paper——

Mr. Wilson: The Independent on Sunday.

Mr. Burns: —I apologise; it was in The Independent on Sunday about six months ago about hon. Members such as me who served on that Committee and some of the comments that we made, I suspected that the hon. Gentleman would raise the matter again during this debate if I had the opportunity to speak.
I will answer his point. I reiterate what I said about three minutes ago. I make no apology for believing that everyone who uses local government services should make a financial contribution of some degree to the provision of those services.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Presumably the hon. Gentleman does not take the view that paying general taxation is sufficient, because that was rejected with contempt during the debates on the poll tax. Is he distressed by the fact that apparently we are now committed under the Government's new scheme to a household bill which will mean that there will be no legal liability for anyone but the householder? [Laughter.]

Mr. Burns: Before Opposition Members start giggling like schoolgirls, they should listen, because they may learn something.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) correctly said, there will be a single bill. But as far as the plan has been announced—it is only the skeleton—[Laughter.] Hang on. We know that part of the bill will be based on the value of the property and the other part will take into account the number of adults living in that property. Although the bill will go only to the household, it will contain an element that reflects the number of people living in the property, and therefore the number of people using and benefiting from the services.
The Bill will result in my constituents receiving a reduction of £140 in their community charge bills. For a household of two, there will be a reduction of £280. The community charge set in Chelmsford on 6 March was £363, a reduction on the previous year. There would have been an even greater reduction, because Essex county council came in at £49 million below SSA, but, sadly, the Liberal-controlled Chelmsford borough council again increased its spending by substantially more than its SSA. So Chelmsford was to have paid for the profligacy of that council, which will be getting its marching orders on 2 May, after which it will no longer control Chelmsford.
As the Bill will mean a reduction of £140 from the £363 that would have been charged, excluding some of the parishes in parts of my constituency, there will be a community charge of £223 per person. For two people in one house, the bill will be £446, substantially less than the average rates bill of £680 in the last year of rates.
Calculating from the community charge what the rates would have been had the old system been maintained—I understand that it would mean a 10 per cent. increase on the rates—the average rates bill in my constituency would have been £750. So the vast majority of my constituents will benefit from 1 April in the coming financial year as a result of the Bill. I shall vote wholeheartedly for the measure, because it will be in my constituents' interests.

Mr. Rooker: And in the hon. Gentleman's interests.

Mr. Burns: That is so, because my wife and I live in my constituency and will pay the community charge there. What applies to my constituents applies to me, so the hon. Gentleman's comment is self-evident. The same is true of all hon. Members who live in their constituencies.
At £446 for two community charges in my constituency, the vast majority of my constituents will be winners and will not mind making a contribution to local government finances. They objected, with reason, to the unacceptable charge of £392 in the current year, which represented £784 for two people. That caused hardship and was considered to be unfair. Let us not forget that the reduction as proposed has nothing to do with the local authority that set the charge in Chelmsford. The Government have simply taken steps to rectify the problem.
The Government will also be helping local authorities with the bills that will be going out for the new community charge. I urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise with the Secretary of State for the Environment an important point concerning the sending out of those bills. Chelmsford borough council set its community charge this year on 6 March. By 20 March, within a couple of weeks, the bills had gone out to 20,000 households.
This legislation will probably be on the statute book by Thursday, when we go into recess. We have been told that instructions are being sent to local authorities to enable them to begin preparing the new bills. I assume that they will receive all the instructions and information that they need by the end of next week. If so, it is in the interests of many local authorities throughout the country to ensure that those new bills are not delivered through the letterbox before 2 May, so that they can spread confusion and misunderstanding about the community charge reductions until after polling day. That will enable them to milk that confusion for as much political advantage as possible.
Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland do anything, even if it means amending the Bill, to ensure that bills are delivered before polling day? Unless local authorities can show the Department of the Environment that there is a good reason why they could not be delivered, I believe that should be done.
Too many councillors and political parties are afraid of the implications of the Government's reduction of the community charge. Many hon. Members are trying to denigrate the scheme and spread confusion because they do not want people to be able to judge those implications before they cast their votes. They should be allowed to vote knowing precisely what they must pay. I hope that, notwithstanding the reassurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the Government will ensure that, however people vote, they do so knowing exactly what they will pay for their local government services in the financial year 1991–92.

Mr. David Bellotti: That is an extremely difficult act to follow. It is now clear that, whereas Eastbourne disposed of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and Ribble Valley disposed of the poll tax, this Bill, which is being rushed through the House in one day, is an attempt by the Government to stop their being disposed of at the forthcoming general election.
The debate was preceded by headlines in the national press such as, "Everybody will get £140 off their poll tax bill." They will not. The press reported that because of a letter dated 19 March from the Department of the Environment to local authority chief executives, which said that there will be
legislation to reduce the community charges set by local authorities for 1991/1992 by £140.
Local authority chief executives throughout the country who received that letter knew that it was ambiguous in the extreme, and they did not know how to respond to local inquiries. When picking up the information from the Government, the national press could do no better than translate what they thought the Government were saying. Earlier today, the Government gave more information to try to explain what they had in mind. The information given to local authorities has led to utter chaos.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should want poll tax bills to land on the doormats of his constituents before 2 May. Thousands of his constituents think that they will pay nothing because, previously, they paid less than £140. In reality, they will pay a great deal, and their rebates will be less.
The poorer people in our communities will be hit harder. There is little joy in the Bill for students or those on income support. I have just heard during the debate that there is rather more joy for people who own second homes. If that is the level of what the Government are trying to do to give the poor some economic relief, it would be better for those poll tax bills to arrrive on doormats before the elections on 2 May. I am surprised that Conservative Members have not received the same volume of letters as me in the past few months from people who cannot afford to pay their poll tax.
In Eastbourne, the poll tax for the coming year has been set at just over £400. The council is controlled by the local Conservatives, who, I am glad to say, will not be there much longer. However, people who have to pay a 20 per cent. contribution will receive only between £20 and £30 relief under their proposals. The relief that they want is to pay nothing. They do not have the "ability to pay", whether it be £50, £60 or £82·80.

Mr. Keith Mans: Bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, will he encourage the chief executive of Eastbourne council to get the bills out before 2 May?

Mr. Bellotti: The chief executive of Eastbourne tried to rescue the poll tax bills from the post office and, due to co-operation from the staff, they have not been delivered. He and his staff now face the mammoth task of trying to understand the information sent out by the Department of the Environment. On television last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said that it should be an easy task, because one merely had to knock £140 off the bills. That is what he believed then, but today we know that it is not true.

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense because what I said appears in the transcript. I clearly said that, for those councils that have sent out bills—only 15 per cent. have—there might be a way to ask people to make a deduction, which could be corrected afterwards, but that was not the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. It is perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman, although he and others wished to distort it, that the £140 was to come off the figure fixed by the council, as he has just read out from the letter. Obviously. rebates and the reduction scheme apply after the figure has been fixed. He knows that, he has always done so, and he is simply trying to deceive people.

Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for that intervention, because it clearly shows that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how the system proposed by the Government will work. If he thinks that the majority of people will be able to perform their own calculation of the rebate available after tonight's announcement, I challenge him to make his own calculation and see how long it takes.

Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to answer the question asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans)?

Mr. Bellotti: I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Wyre did not like my answer, he will be able to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take further interventions, because many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I have already been generous enough.
I am sure that there are hon. Members from Scotland here who wish to be called in the debate. The estimates of billing in Scotland will be even more difficult to send out to Scottish constituents than those in England, for reasons that I am sure Scottish Members will know—the timetabling of billing Scotland. I am sure that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will outline those problems.
It is interesting that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is no longer with us. In October 1990, just five months ago, he said:
The community charge is a courageous, fair and sensible solution. Far from being a vote loser … it will be a vote winner and launch us on a fourth term.
If I had made that statement, I should want to leave the Chamber during the debate, despite my responsibilities.
The core reason for tonight's debate has been referred to. Since 1979, the Government have taken back from local authorities nearly £58 billion that they should have given. The £4·25 billion that they now propose to make available to enable local authorities to reduce the poll tax is but a mere trifle compared with the funding that should be there.
The principle of the poll tax is that everyone should pay. What about Wandsworth, where no one will pay for the services because of the high Government grant? The Bill is no more than a bus stop on the road to a new system of taxation—two taxes instead of one. Only one system of taxation will meet the needs of local communities and ensure that services are delivered. People who can afford to pay will do so, but those who cannot need not. That system is, of course, a local income tax. Such a system works in Japan and in Denmark, which is smaller than this country. It works in America and Germany, and it would work here. The Government should urgently examine a system of local income tax. Conservative Members seem to advocate the return of some form of property tax, combined with a poll tax of sorts, but that would produce burdens for millions of people.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bellotti: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear up a matter which puzzles me and, I am sure, puzzles many hon. Members. How much of local government expenditure would be met from his party's local income tax, and what would be done about the business rate?

Mr. Bellotti: Our system of local income tax is extremely easy and would mirror the systems in some of the countries that I have mentioned. The level would be about 5·5p on the standard rate of income tax. That is a Government figure that we asked for.
The Bill will make it more difficult for local authorities to collect the money they need. For example, people on income support and students, who last year could not pay the poll tax, will have to contribute next year, and that money will cost a great deal to collect. Conservative Members say that everybody should pay something towards local services. If the cost of the collection is

greater than the sum that would be realised, should the local authority continue to pursue the collection? That is not cost-effective government or cost-effective taxation.
The Bill is designed to dig the Government out of the poll tax pit. Its effect is to draw attention to a Government who have clearly run out of steam and out of policies. They should soon be run out of office.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) that whatever system we move to should not be based on the principle that everybody should contribute to the cost of local government. About 70 per cent. of defaulters are those who are supposed to pay 20 per cent., and it is nonsense to pretend that an increase in social benefits will be passed by the recipient to his local council. That has been proved not to be true, and we should stop pretending that it will be. We should acknowledge that, if people do not have enough money to contribute to local government, they should not be expected to do so. That principle applies to central Government taxation.
It is clear that there is to be a reduction of £140 which applies to the charge set by councils. On that there will be rebates and the benefits of the reduction scheme. The central question relates to the proportion that is to be raised locally. This scheme reduces that sum from about £12 billion to about £8 billion. That seems perfectly reasonable, because the last time that the rates were used, they raised about £8·7 billion after rebates and reliefs. That is about where it should be.
I do not understand the figures used by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who opened for the Opposition. He said that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was last at the Department of the Environment, the proportion of the rate support grant fell to 35 per cent. That is not true—or is true only on the basis of a peculiar calculation. I have figures from the Library showing that, in 1986, the proportion was still 54 per cent.
Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) may now claim, he was the man responsible for slaughtering the proportion of that grant and hence the poll tax mess we are in. It could not be said to have happened earlier, unless one works on the calculation used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), which includes all local authority revenues, such as the housing revenue account. That is how he can say that the local proportion has gone down from 20 to 11 per cent., but one cannot then claim, as the hon. Member for Dagenham did, that it was 60-odd per cent. under Labour Governments. On the basis of that calculation, we brought the proportion steadily down to 54 per cent. Then, with the community charge, it fell significantly.
In the last financial year, the community charge raised 37 per cent. of local authority income. We have now reduced that by just over £4 billion. I believe passionately that that position should be maintained. To say that that will be the approximate contribution from now on should be the Government's first commitment in the new system, but I do not want the money to be poured out indiscriminately in the form of untargeted central grant. If a proportion of funding is to be transferred to the centre—which is what the Government are doing—it should be


targeted on services. There should be a general Government grant, the RSG, a uniform business grant, which we already have, and an education grant.
The education service has distorted local government ever since the mid-1950s. In 1957, when we moved away from specific percentage Exchequer grants for education, all the local authority associations, all the teaching unions and the Labour party condemned the Conservative Government. They said, rightly and understandably, that it would be wrong to move to a block grant because education was too important to be considered on the same plane as refuse disposal, parks and libraries. They said that some authorities would spend money intended for education on other services, that standards across the country would he far from uniform, that there would be growing disparity in education provision and that we should not be able to deliver national priorities in education policy. They cited the fact that there was a Russian satellite going round that year to prove that technical education was important.
They were right, and we have not delivered national priorities in education. However, the same people now condemn the attempt by some of us to move to a central education grant. They claim, for some reason, that it would lead to a gigantic central bureaucracy which would deny local democracy. It did not do so then and would not do so now. It would be good for education and for local. government.
A royal commission, the Redcliffe-Maud commission, based its entire structure of local government on the optimum number of people required to run an education service. That is how far education has distorted local government. It is still distorting council budgets, accounting for 60 per cent. of a country's resources. For heaven's sake let us get back to raising locally a proper local services tax, with national services paid by national Government.
How should we fund that remainder? I have some suggestions for my right hon. and hon. Friends. We must go back to a property-based tax. Every sensible, sophisticated, modern western economy has one. The question that remains, however, is on what principles to judge the value of property. The Inland Revenue valuation service would like to revalue every house in the country as often as possible. Many more valuers would have to be recruited and they would have a lot more to do, but it would be daft and unnecessary. We do not even need to obtain modern capital valuations. We certainly do not need to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby suggested—have a rolling programme over 10 years. If we did that, by the end of the process the valuations that we started with would be completely irrelevant. The process is an abstract concept. It is a theoretical, undesirable norm that is irrelevant in practice.
What matters to the people of, say, Leeds, is not whether their semi-detached houses are valued on a similar basis to semi-detached houses in Luton. What matters to them is whether semi-detached houses in Leeds relate properly to terraced houses in Leeds and big, detached houses on the edge of Leeds. I believe that we could move instantly back to a sensible categorisation of properties by using values already on the computer. They are already used for the collection of water company charges. Those values are not irrelevant and dead; they are used now. Local authorities would categorise properties within broad bands, on the basis of existing local authority valuations.
To take Leeds as an example—I made a speech on the same issue months ago in the House—if we used the old valuations, properties valued at below £100 would be within category A. Properties valued at more than £1,000 would come into the highest category. Most of the properties in Leeds were valued at between £300 and £450. There could be a band for properties valued at between £100 and £300 and another for properties valued at between £500 and £1,000. That would stop the nonsense of properties being revalued when their owners improve them by adding a bit on, or installing central heating. We do not want individual revaluations of property. That causes enormous irritation, imposes an enormous cost and takes a great deal of time. We could move immediately to a broad assessment. Accountability would then be pinned on to local authorities.
If one revalues on a rolling basis or on an instant year basis, as happens in Scotland, householders become confused about accountability. They believe that it is the Government who have caused the increase in the value of their property, while the local authority gets the credit for lowering the poundage. However, local authorities never reduce it sufficiently to compensate people; generally they end up paying more. It is a purposeless exercise that does not solve the problem. People ought to know that they will pay less if they live in one type of house and that people with more money who live in much bigger houses will pay more.
The local council would adjust the boundaries. It is a rough and ready system, but if certain parts of a town improved while other declined, the onus would then be on the local authority to move properties into the relevant band, just as the onus would be on the local authority to change the poundage year on year and not to confuse it with revaluations. Once houses were put into categories A, B, C and D, that would be it. Each authority, whether in the south or the north, would put properties into those bands, regardless of what other authorities did, to raise the revenue they needed. That would be a straightforward system that could be introduced quickly.
The other remaining issue that my right hon. Friend must resolve is whether we take account of numbers and how that is to be done. We must state as clearly and quickly as possible that to take account, in broad terms, of the number of people who live in a house does not involve a twin-tax system. Whatever the Opposition may tell the public—that the Government intend to impose a poll tax on top of a property tax—we are not doing that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes you are."] I do not believe we are. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will say that that is not what we are going to do. If I allow them to speak for themselves, I must be allowed to speak for myself and to suggest that we could—I trust that the consultative documents will suggest a number of options—place the charge at a level that would be the equivalent of a couple. That charge would be halved if a single person were living in a particular property.
The press have suggested that the charge would be fixed on the assumption that three people were living in a house. That could be done, a reduction being made if only two people or one person lived in the house. I should not favour such an option, because the basic number in a household is two, not three. I do not think it is worth while trying to count the numbers in households with four, five or six people. Most households do not have more than three people.
This would be a rough and ready system which would end the abuse of the rating system—to which the Labour party would go back—under which a single person would pay the same as three or four wage earners in the house next door. It would take account of numbers in an approximate way.
If one wished to do more than that, one could impose on the owner of the house the duty to declare the numbers of people in his house, as he does for the electoral register. I would recommend to my colleagues, if they wanted to go that way, that it should be a scheme whereby the local authority would check the electoral register to see how many people were living in a house and the owner would then get the bill for two, three or four people. He or she would then decide whether to spread the burden. There are simple ways of doing that and it would not involve a separate bill for each person or keeping a separate register such as the poll tax register. There would be a single bill. It would not involve all the scrutiny, all the inspection and all the policing. I wish to goodness that we could nail this one and stop Opposition Members making nonsensical remarks about it.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend just mentioned the community charge register. Does he support my contention that most of those in local authorities who have the duty of collecting local government taxes would agree with him that it is important that we do away with the concept of any separate register?

Dr. Hampson: Certainly. I totally endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I do not believe that I have seen any statement from Ministers that suggests that there is any intention of keeping a poll tax register in addition to the electoral register. I do not believe that that makes practical sense, and I trust that Ministers will not pursue that route.
Having outlined two possibilities of what we might do and suggested that, if we are to keep the percentage of central Government grant at its present level, we do so by moving and transferring services such as the bulk of education—we need not move it all, but we could certainly move 75 per cent. of it and go back to something like the system we had until 1957—we might have a balanced system that Opposition Members would feel they could support. I remind them that, when the present Leader of the Opposition was their education spokesman, he endorsed and advocated publicly on platform after platform that I was on that there should be a transfer of at least some education expenditure, so why can we not reach some compromise which Opposition Members would agree to endorse?

Mr. Tony Banks: Not-withstanding anything that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends have said about the Bill, everyone in the country knows exactly what the Bill is about: it is about trying to save the Conservative Government, and it is borne out of fear and panic.
It was obvious from the very outset to Opposition Members, and to some of the more perceptive Conservative Members, that the poll tax would not work.

It has taken a while, but gradually it has dawned on even the most stupid Conservative Members that the poll tax has become an electoral liability, and that is why they are moving so speedily to dump it. After all, nothing concentrates the minds of Members of Parliament more than the possibility of coming second or even third in their constituencies at a general election.
I am sorry that the previous Prime Minister is not in her accustomed place to listen to the debate. She viewed the poll tax as her flagship, but of course flagships are not designed to be hung around the neck. When studying the right hon. Lady's language it becomes politically interesting when for "flagship" one reads "millstone"; for "unassailable" one reads "on the way out"; for "jewel in our crown"—as the right hon. Lady referred to the GLC when it was won for the Conservative party—one reads "abolition"; and for "the iron lady" one reads "rusty old hulk now sitting in the political scrap yard waiting to be torn to pieces". I for one am no mourner as I watch that process.
Tory Members of Parliament knew that the poll tax had to go, albeit rather slowly. They would like to dump it in one day, but that is not possible. But even to dump it slowly, they had to dump the right hon. Member for Finchley rather more quickly. The poll tax represents bigotry and arrogance turned into legislation. Conservative Members went through the lobbies in support of the right hon. Member for Finchley, and now the vast majority of them are repenting.
One would expect some of them at least to have the humility to stand up and admit that they were wrong, and to apologise to local authorities and to the people, but arrogance still sits easily on them. I should like to know, indeed, whether the right hon. Member for Finchley will have the decency to apologise in this House. I suspect that she will not. In that case, she should be dragged here, nailed down to a bench and made to listen to the first ringing of the death-knell of her flagship.
I should like to know whether the right hon. Lady will vote tonight. I understand that the Government have imposed a three-line Whip. Will the right hon. Lady obey that Whip? Has she been paired?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose——

Mr. Banks: I shall not give way.
Has the right hon. Lady been paired? Perhaps she has been paired with the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—who knows? They would make a very interesting couple. Or perhaps she has been paired with some other friend of the family. If she defies the three-line Whip, will she be admonished or denied her expected elevation to the upper House?
The poll tax has been a total fiasco.

Mr. Arnold: rose——

Mr. Banks: I will not give way. Many hon. Members want to speak, yet Government Members have taken up ages with boring, tedious speeches. I want to get in and out as fast as possible. Let me give the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) a bit of advice: he should do likewise, both in his political life and in his private life.
The poll tax has been a fiddle from start to finish. Today again, the Secretary of State for the Environment was less than impressive. He asked who was paying for services in Wandsworth. Someone is paying. Surely it has dawned


even on Conservative Members of Parliament that there is no such thing as a free lunch. All that the Environment Secretary could say was that, if everyone were to vote the same way as people in Wandsworth, everyone would benefit in the same way. Let us take that to its logical conclusion. If every local authority went Tory, who would pay for the local government services? It appears that no one in Wandsworth is paying.
It is costing the taxpayers of this country about £14 billion to save the Government's face. The Government have reduced local authority finance to the level of low farce. If any local authority had been responsible for the financial chaos that the Government have visited upon the people, its members would have been surcharged. Indeed, some of them would have been disqualified for many years, as happened to many decent councillors in Liverpool, Lambeth and other places, who delayed making a rate only because they wanted to protect services. The Government have reduced local authority finance to a state of chaos, yet they are still walking around and expecting us to be grateful now that they are trying to clear up the mess that they created. This is hypocrisy raised to an art form.
As for the people who will benefit from this Bill, I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be able to catch your eye when we are dealing with some of the amendments. Many people in my constituency will not benefit from this reduction of £140. Those who are paying only 20 per cent. will get only £28. They will have to spend only about £1,100 on VAT-rated services to pay all that money back, and they will continue to pay VAT after that. The last time VAT was increased, millions of retailers increased prices by amounts considerably greater than the tax increase. This is a bad deal for many thousands of people. It is certainly bad for the 41,000 in my borough who are on benefit. Those people will receive very little as a result of the Government's munificence. The Government are trying to buy off the taxpayers.
We have an incompetent, bungling, stupid, half-witted Government, who deserve to be kicked out of office as fast as possible. They have done vast damage, not only to local government finance but to the whole machinery of local democracy and accountability. They are a bunch of ratbags, and they deserve to be booted out.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The fundamental question which has lain behind this debate is whether we continue to want local government with the local democracy to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred. I am one of those who believe in continuing to press forward with attempting to have a proper system of local democracy, and there are three possible approaches.
In ascending order of merit, they are, first, to fund local government nationally, as has been suggested by various hon. Members today, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) yesterday and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I think that that would be a bad idea because, however clever one is with such a funding arrangement, there would have to be a predetermined formula which would essentially have to be based on local needs decided by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North has come up with the suggestion of parcelling out money from the

centre and leaving it to local government to choose how to spend the money, but the element of choice would he denied by a predetermined formula.
My one anxiety about the Bill—a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North and others—is that it is a halfway point, a stepping stone, towards such a national form of local government funding. There are good reasons for worrying that this might be such a step.
On the one hand, the gearing point, which has been made several times, is that, once a position is reached where only 10 per cent. of local funding is discretionary, there is the problem that a 1 per cent. increase of expenditure on top of the existing formula would result in a 10 per cent. increase in the local discretionary funding. That would result in a situation which no Government, of whatever political persuasion, would be prepared to tolerate. This in turn would result in the perceived need for universal capping, and that would be tantamount to nationally run local government. For the sort of reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby put forward, there must be some anxiety that the Bill is a step in that direction, or might be in the wrong hands. That would be disturbing.
A second broad approach to local government was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), and that is to leave the proportion funded the same but to take away some of the services. There are some logical arguments in favour of that. That would leave genuine local services which one would hope would be funded locally with maximum local discretion and accountability and that would overcome some of the problems, which undoubtedly lie in the Government's mind, about the enormous size of some items of local funding such as education.
Thirdly, there is a set of suggestions which would involve genuine local accountability. The community charge was undoubtedly such a scheme. Inefficient councils, such as Lambeth, impose severe penalties upon the people who live in their area and those people have the power, which can be developed over the years, to throw out such a council and replace it with ones like that in Westminster, which will give them the benefit of a low community charge.

Mr. George Walden: One important point is constantly elided. My hon. Friend mentioned education in passing. Education is the most costly and important responsibility of local government; whatever decision is made about it should be made not on cost accounting grounds, but on the basis of whether that decision will promote or retard the improvement in quality that is imperative to the country's future.
I am sorry to sound so pompous, but this strikes me as rather important.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. As he says, education is a predominant feature of local expenditure—so predominant, indeed, that it is surely reasonable to ask whether it is a genuinely local service that should be financed through a form of local taxation. I merely suggest that one way in which to preserve the balance between local funding—with genuine local accountability—and national funding, while lowering the overall bill, would be to remove education from the local budget.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, possibly on both sides of the House, sincerely believe that there are genuine educational grounds for making the transfer?

Mr. Spicer: Certainly I concede that; it is an important—perhaps predominant—factor.
There is a third way of funding local government: by maintaining the democratic local accountability that goes with a system that penalises inefficient authorities, and relates what people spend to the services that are provided. I have already expressed my anxieties about the Bill. I very much hope that it will prove to be a temporary measure to enable us to maintain the fundamental principle that local democracy can survive only if local government is allowed to raise its own money, while accepting the penalties that may be involved.
I cannot see how genuine local democracy and accountability could be maintained under an exclusively property-based tax, or under a system of national funding whereby local government became simply the agent of central Government. I hope that we can retain the fundamental principle that—unashamedly—formed part of the community charge proposals, and which I have defended in my constituency and elsewhere: the desirability of a relationship between what is spent locally and what is raised locally. I hope that the Bill represents no more than a breathing space, and that we shall keep faith with what we have done in the past—although, of course, we must develop and modify past measures for the future.
I should have preferred the money that we are spending in the Bill to be devoted to helping those who are most in need. That is a good Conservative principle, which we should have espoused by developing the rebate system. I trust that the Bill will provide us with no more than an interlude during which we can build on the principles that we have already established.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was commendably candid when he said that the Bill was intended to buy time on a purely political basis. No amount of time for this legislation can save the Conservative party. If only for his own sake, he should learn the lesson of what happened to his colleagues in Scotland at the previous general election, most of whom lost their seats precisely because of the poll tax.
I welcome the fact that the burden of the poll tax will be reduced as a consequence of the Bill. I even welcome the fact that the Government are beginning to redress the balance by increasing the subvention from central to local government to a proportion similar to that which existed when the Government first came to power. However, my constituents and I will not start rejoicing until the poll tax has been abolished. Whatever else the Bill may be, it is not quite the abolition of the poll tax.
The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said yesterday that this would be "son of poll tax", but he was not quite right—it will be triplets. There will be a property tax, a poll tax—a substantial poll tax if the Secretary of State for Scotland has anything to do with it—and a value added tax surcharge to deal with the panic. In spite of the Bill, the poll tax will remain a substantial burden, even after the £140 reduction. My constituents who pay the full poll tax will still have to pay £402 as a consequence of the

capricious way in which the Scottish Office distributes central Government grant among local authorities in Scotland. More important, the people on the lowest incomes in my constituency will still pay £80 towards the poll tax, which many of them cannot afford.
I vividly remember, when I received my first poll tax bill, bringing it to the House at Prime Minister's Question Time. I told the then Prime Minister that I should be £1,000 better off as a result of the poll tax, whereas the poorest people in my constituency would have to pay more. She told me that I should give my ill-gotten gains to charity, but that would not be of much assistance to the poorer people in my constituency or anywhere else.
The new formula will still mean that the poorer people will be required to pay substantially more than they can afford, partly to pay for the shortfall in local authority revenue caused by the chronic inefficiency of the poll tax, with which we have all become painfully familiar in recent months and years. It is absolutely vital that, whatever formula the Government try to devise to overcome the crisis that has befallen the poll tax, they must do the honest and fair thing for people on the lowest incomes. I understand that it would cost just £30 million to give those who qualify for the maximum rebate a 100 per cent. rebate in Scotland. That is the minimum that the Government should do to protect those people.
Ministers need not tell us that they were not warned—we told them what would happen. With my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I was a member of the Committee which, in the winter of 1986–87, dealt with the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill. We warned the Government then that the poll tax would be unfair and unworkable. I remember especially contrasting what Her Majesty the Queen would pay in respect of Balmoral castle—a holiday or second home—with what a pensioner living in a cottage on that estate would pay. We now have the same thing again. The Queen will be £280 better off in respect of her second home at Balmoral, while a single pensioner living in a cottage on her estate will benefit by only £28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise on recollection that he should not bring the royal family into his argument.

Mr. Home Robertson: We dealt with that issue in the debate at that time. I was referring to Her Majesty's private estate rather than to her official position, but I shall move on.
I remind the Secretary of State for Scotland how he and his colleagues scoffed and sneered, and exchanged reassurances about how it would be such a grand affair for the Tory party in Scotland to have the poll tax. The Secretary of State said:
This is an issue which has been deliberated upon and considered and reviewed in all circumstances and from all angles for a very long time, and it is now appropriate to take decisions … What the Bill proposes is a workable and viable solution to the serious problem."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 January 1987; c. 144.]
I remind the Secretary of State that, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, when we discussed the Bill on the Scottish poll tax, he voted for the poll tax no fewer than 35 times. A number of his colleagues did the same, but they cannot do so again because most of them lost their seats at the ensuing general election. Those who lost their seats included the Minister in charge of that Bill, Mr. Michael Ancram, and the Whip, Mr. Gerald Malone, who


I understand is now in Winchester. Others who lost their seats included Mr. John Corrie, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mr. Alexander Pollock, Mr. Barry Henderson and Mr. Michael Hirst. Even the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, lost his seat. The only Tory survivors from that Committee were the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), now Secretary of State for Scotland. Yet we understand that they are still fighting to retain the principle of the poll tax. Will they never learn?
The Secretary of State still describes the poll tax as a "remarkable success story" and wants to ensure that the principle is retained in Scotland. I do not mind the Secretary of State and his dwindling band of hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies—11 down and 10 to go—behaving like political lemmings, but I do mind my constituents having to suffer as they do now under this grotesquely unfair tax, which bears no relationship to ability to pay or to access to services in different districts and regions in Scotland, and which takes no account of its chronic inefficiencies.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should face the fact that the poll tax is now in the process of self-destruction. It has been difficult enough for the poll tax to be administered up to now. Now that its death has been announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, although he is trying to fudge the issue at the moment, what has up to now been a difficult tax to collect will become a non-starter. It will he like carrying on feeding the proverbial dead parrot.
What is required is not tinkering with the poll tax, and not palliatives like the Bill. What is required is the immediate abolition of the poll tax. The only way in which that can be done administratively—whatever the merits of the local income tax or anything else that hon. Members may wish to discuss may be—the only way to get rid of the poll tax this year is to reactivate the rating system and find ways of making it workable and acceptable. It may be worth considering other forms of taxation in due course, but we must face the fact that there is only one way to get rid of the poll tax now—to reintroduce a workable and lair property tax, and that is what we propose. The Government will not be able to get away with this shambles. I am glad that even the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) admitted that the Bill was only a palliative and a means of buying time, but it will not buy time—the poll tax must go.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We have seen some remarkable events. This morning, we learned that the Scottish National party has sacked its spokesman on the poll tax because he refuses to pay. The one point about the position of the Scottish National party that strikes me now is that, almost irrespective of what the Government produce, it will have to be backed by the Scottish National party—poll tax element and all. There are changes not only on the Opposition Benches. The Scottish Office has a new slogan. Its advice is not to pay the poll tax until the new arrangements are in place.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question? Now that nobody, not even Ministers, believes in the poll tax, will he, as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, instruct Labour

local authorities in Scotland to stop poinding the poor, as they are doing now, and to stop arresting benefits and stealing the goods of the sick, of the disabled and of the unemployed?

Mr. Dewar: I must confess that the hon. Gentleman's view of local democracy is strange if he thinks that it is my position to instruct those in local government. What is even more disreputable is that someone who has led people into a situation where debts have piled up so that they are no longer able to claim rebates, legal costs have accrued and they face great problems should then lecture me about the morality of the situation as he reaches for his cheque book and walks away from the problem.
If the Government's advice is that people should not pay and that we should all stop our direct debits until the new arrangements are in place, I suspect that the Secretary of State will find that the problems that that creates in terms of take-up in the next two years will be considerable.
There is always a temptation to rewrite history. In the recent statement on local government in Scotland on 21 March, the Secretary of State, when challenged about the liability of the severely mentally handicapped, suggested that the sympathetic approach that the Government had adopted to the community charge would perhaps put people's fears at rest. Those who remember the debate on Alzheimer's disease, our desperate efforts to persuade the Government to consider the problems of those suffering from that illness and the remarkable resistance of the Government to including them in the exemption scheme put up by the Secretary of State will find that charge somewhat unwise
What about the mystery of the register? Ministers are all over the place on whether there will or will not be such a register. On Thursday, the Secretary of State for the Environment told hon. Members:
under the new system we shall not need a register." —[Official Report,21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 422.]
By Sunday, on television, he was telling us that there may be a register. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Scotland was telling anyone who listened that there would have to be some kind of register. On that form—it is just a symbol of the debate—it would be a surprise if the Government managed to agree on anything.
The relief scheme also constantly changes its form and substance. Transitional relief mark 1 has given way to mark 2, and now we have the community charge reduction scheme, which was altered yet again during last night's debate.
I accept that all the changes have been made in the cause of simplicity. Therefore, I was particularly interested when the Scottish Office offered a clear explanation today on how the new community charge reduction scheme will work. It offered the following formula:
E x C— R — (E — 1 x £52)
E",
where E is the number of persons in a household, C the poll tax level for 1991–92 and R the rates bill on the property as at 31 March 89. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has suggested that it would be easy for anyone to adjust their poll tax liability under the new scheme, but if that formula is the kind of simplicity and light that the Government are pushing into the world of local government finance, we shall have many questions.
We are getting into an appallingly complicated and confused situation, not on the basis of any principle, but


on the fatal basis that Ministers are trying to take a little bit here and a little bit there. Their actions will not produce something for the public good, but they hope that that will keep the warring factions in the Conservative party quiet for a little while longer. Warring factions there are in plenty. Many Conservative Members still look to Finchley as the Jacobites once looked to France.
Undoubtedly there are many Conservatives who are unhappy about what has been announced by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). In a recent article in the Glasgow Herald, the vice-president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, faced with the prospect of a two-tax system, said that that had all the attractions of being stranded on a desert island with Esther Rantzen. Whatever his personal judgment of Esther Rantzen, he has certainly expressed his view on the two-tax system.
I do not know what that gentleman will say about the three-tax system that the Secretary of State has now produced. My advisers tell me that the tabloid press has already described that as "Hezza's hat trick". I suspect that that proposal will be unsellable and will be seen for what it is—a pathetic attempt to buy time while the escape committee continues to meet in vain to find a way out of the difficulties in which the Government find themselves.
The Bill can only be described as a form of conscience money. We accept that any relief is welcome, but we have the most fundamental objections to many of the aspects and implications of what the Government are doing.
Again and again, speakers in this debate have said that it is not everyone who will get £140 off what they have to pay or, if they pay less than that amount, will see their bill totally eliminated. However, I suspect that that fact has not been appreciated by many people. In Scotland, 800,000 people are dependent upon income support. All of them will get a maximum of £28. They are sitting at home thinking about £140, and they are going to be very bitter and disappointed.
I was very interested in what the Secretary of State for the Environment said tonight about the reduction in the headline figures. I noticed, as I am sure he has noticed, that the differential—the reduction—in England is much larger than it will be in Scotland. Considering the minutiae and how the system will impact, we are left with considerable anxieties, and with the feeling that we have been the victims of a con trick.
My constituents will certainly notice the anomaly of Wandsworth and Westminster. They do not see a triumph of accountability in that. They do not see the sacred principle that buttressed the poll tax for so long—the principle that everyone must pay something. It is really no answer for the Secretary of State to say that people should get their local authorities to reduce their charges and also their budgets. Are we going to sack home helps in hard-pressed areas of urban deprivation? Are we going to close schools? Is that the advice of the Secretary of State, who once paraded up and down the length of England, posing as the champion of deprived urban areas? Is that the advice that he is now giving?
I can only talk with detailed knowledge of the Scottish system, but that shows that there is little correlation between the size of the poll tax in the current year and grant payments made or expenditure. For example, in

Lothian, which is a major local authority in Scotland, the poll tax is nearly the same as the notorious figure in Lambeth that we have heard so much about. However, Lothian's grant per head from the Scottish Office is the lowest of any region in Scotland, and it spends less per head than the regional average. That puts into perspective some of the simplistic deductions—I regret to say that they were almost sneers—about local government during this debate, sometimes from ministerial sources.
Later tonight, we shall consider amendments. I very much hope that the 20 per cent. rule will be abolished. Again and again, we have tried to convince the Government that it should go, but we have always been met with the argument that it had to be retained because of the principle of accountability, that sacred principle that everyone pays something—except, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, in Wandsworth.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise the seriousness of the argument that, if one transfers a large tranche of local government expenditure to VAT, which has been picked as the most invisible of taxes for political reasons, if one proposes a scheme in which the only legal liability will fall upon the householder and no legal liability will fall upon other people who generate liability but are not responsible for it, which I should have thought was the anthithesis of accountability, it is clear that the system of accountability has gone, and with it goes the only possible reason for retaining the 20 per cent. rule.
In Scotland, that rule could go for £30 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is dwarfed by the waste and appalling inefficiency which has been forced upon us by the mismanagement of the Government and the inefficiency of the system.
I hope that we shall not get a stony-faced refusal to consider this matter. May I offer some helpful advice? it would greatly help the Government's credibility if they gave ground on this, as they have given ground and scuttled on so many other things after the past three or four weeks.
I finish by returning to a theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). The situation in Scotland parallels the one to which he referred in connection with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Over a considerable period, the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken a stringent approach to local government finance. We have had a ruthless series of cuts—a withdrawal—[Interruption.] It may not be ruthless by the standards of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), but it is ruthless by the standards of any reasonable or ordinary human being. The Secretary of State for Scotland has appeared as a Scrooge-like figure of probity, with the hanging face of an unsympathetic bank manager refusing an overdraft, when saying that any increase in local government spending or in central Government support for local services was anathema.
The kernel of my concern and worries is not the spirit in which the Government have approached the problem. Of course I should have liked to see a retreat and the acceptance that central Government have to make a due contribution and to maintain a proper balance in the funding of local services, but I suspect that this is the start of a process that will leave local democracy with a sterile future. We are starting a process that will mean that there


will indeed be a huge percentage of central Government funding, but which will produce an impossible gearing effect.
In Scotland at the moment, only 13 per cent. of local government finance is raised by local government itself and is controlled by local government. The result of that huge percentage dependence on central government support will be low expenditure and deteriorating services, and that is a tragedy. The price of the increase announced in the Budget will be a straitjacket on local government and its most stringent capping by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the years ahead.
There was an interesting exchange the other day at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, at which the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke. I listened with care to his speech—as I always do—because on occasions his speeches throw up some interesting ideas. He equated control with accountability, which is a dangerous fallacy. It is not true that control arid accountability are the same thing. In many ways, they are very different.
Central Government control is now being substituted for accountability, and in that we see the essence of the death of local government. That will be seen with great sorrow in many areas of England, where local authorities have been supported by Tory councillors who have worked honourably to control the affairs of their own communities and to run them in accordance with the opinions of their electorate.
If I am right, if that is the process on which we have started, and if the Bill is part of that process, every hon. Member who has an interest in local democracy and in the right of communities to run their own affairs will have every cause for concern.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): There have been some interesting speeches in this debate. I thank particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for their support. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) for his interesting contribution to the on-going review that we shall be pursuing into other aspects of local government funding, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).
This is a small Bill, but it is important—not only for local authorities and for local government in general, but also as part of the broad approach to the reform of the funding, function and structure of local government that we are bringing forward in a measured and orderly way. It is most immediately and directly important because it brings an immediate benefit to the residents of local authorities throughout the country. There is no doubt about the reason and need for the Bill—it is the high spending of local councils.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) tried to pretend that aggregate Exchequer finance for local authorities had been cut and that only this Government have cut it as a proportion of expenditure. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pointed out, cuts in aggregate Exchequer finance started from 1976 onwards under the last Labour Government. In Scotland in 1975–76, the figure was as high as 75 per cent. of local government expenditure. By the time we came to power, it had been cut by the Labour

Government to 68–5 per cent. Certainly we have reduced it further, but the grant has gone up by 6 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
The problem is that the overall level of the local tax burden is too high. That is what we had to address in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford pointed out. The reason is that local authorities have continued to increase their spending year after year over and above the rate of inflation.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister is presenting a somewhat distorted picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) told us earlier in the debate that it was clear from an answer that he had received to a parliamentary question that, if the rate support grant had been maintained at the same level from 1978–79, the poll tax would be not £250 but £150.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact, that while local government funding in Scotland has risen by 6 per cent. in real terms, the increase in spending by local authorities has risen faster and that has caused the burden on local people. In Fife, for instance, in the five years before the community charge was introduced, expenditure rose by no less than 40 per cent. in real terms.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) blamed the high poll tax levels in Edinburgh and East Lothian on the grant distribution, but that is absolute nonsense. In fact, the opposite is the case. Lothian got a higher than average increase in Government grant this year. In Edinburgh, spending has risen by no less than 70 per cent. since 1984, and staffing is up by 30 per cent.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Is it not a disgrace that Labour-controlled Fife regional council gets the Douglas Mason accolade from the architect of the poll tax, by showing clearly that, if everybody behaved like that council, the poll tax would be working?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman may wish to fight his private battles with others in Fife on the Floor of the House. The one contribution that we would welcome from the Scottish National party would be an apology to the people of Scotland whom it has led into severe difficulties through its non-payment campaign. The sympathy evinced by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the poor in Scotland is the most sickening hypocrisy against the background of having led those people into misery and debt through the non-payment campaign.
Under the community charge, local authorities had their chance to behave responsibly and to show themselves accountable to local residents. Now, for the sake of the community charge payer, we have had to recognise that the local tax base can no longer sustain the burden that councils have been imposing upon it. That is why we have moved to increase funding from central Government and the United Kingdom taxpayer. With that comes more accountability to the taxpayer.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that this is a long-term step change in the central-local taxation relationship. If local authorities find themselves under tighter control in future because of accountability to the national taxpayer being more rigorous than accountability to local residents, they can reflect on the fact that they had their chance to be more responsible in their approach.
I am fully aware that the provisions of the Bill require local authorities to undertake important additional administrative tasks. We are trying hard to keep disruption to a minimum. To the hon. Member for Dagenham I can say that the £60 million estimate of additional administrative cost to local authorities is just that. It is not intended to compensate authorities for lost cash flow because advance payments from the non-domestic rate pool in England and advance payments from the rate support grant in Scotland will do that. On the figures for re-billing given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), it sounds as though the provision of £60 million is generous.
Our intention is that the Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible. We shall give maximum co-operation to local authorities. There are signs that many local authorities can re-bill quickly. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that it would be unforgiveable if local authorities delayed their bills and held them back from the electorate until after the local elections in order to hide the good news.

Mr. David Marshall: rose——

Mr. Lang: No, the hon. Gentleman was not present during the debate.

Mr. Dewar: I am a little worried about these allegations. As the senior Minister in Scotland, does the Secretary of State suggest that Labour authorities, or any local authority, would deliberately hold back issuing the bills, thereby putting themselves in much greater difficulty with their cash flow, in order to make the political point that appears to lie behind the Secretary of State's suggestion?

Mr. Lang: I was responding to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow. Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) agrees that it would be unforgivable if local authorities delayed in that way.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) suggested that the arrangements in the Bill favoured standard charge payers over those in receipt of community charge benefit. We are applying a consistent principle. That principle is that the personal charge set by an authority will be reduced by £140. Where a charge payer pays the full charge, the amount that he pays will be reduced by £140. Where the charge payer pays only a proportion of the charge, the amount will be reduced by a proportion of the £140. So a student paying 20 per cent. of the charge would have his bill reduced by 20 per cent. of £140—that is to say, by £28.
Likewise, where the standard charge is half the full charge, as in several cases, the bill will be reduced by half of £140—that is to say, by £70. Where the standard charge is twice the full personal charge, the reduction will be twice £140. That is not favouritism but a sensible application of a uniform approach. The hon. Member for Eastbourne cannot find fault with that.
It is essential that the measure should not be regarded simply as a means of reducing charges for the coming year. It should instead be viewed in the much wider context of our review of the future funding of local government. The Bill provides for the initial implementation of a permanent

change in the balance of the funding of local services from local taxation to national taxation. In future, the balance will remain broadly the same as it will be following the enactment of the Bill. The future, of course, includes the new arrangements for funding local government expenditure which I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales announced last week.
The Opposition have sought to characterise our approach as indecisive, yet in the next breath they complain about the unseemly haste that they see in the Bill. In the devil's dictionary and distorting glossary of Labourspeak, careful consideration becomes indecision, decisive action equals panic, sensible consultation equals dithering, and co-ordinated progress is described as chaos.
I will give the House an example of Labour's decisive action. The Labour party's roof tax was drafted in two minutes on the back of an envelope and lasted about five minutes. An example of Labour's careful consideration is the more than 67 varieties of local tax that they have come up with in the past few years. They make H. J. Heinz look like a one-product company. The trouble is that the 67 announcements came first and the careful consideration came later.
The roof tax was described by the hon. Member for Garscadden in February 1990 as
a sound, detailed and practical proposal",
and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in March said:
The principle is firm and I cannot see us moving from it.
But the Leader of the Opposition said the next month that he did not think that there was too much enthusiasm for the idea. So with the rates, which the Leader of the Opposition described as the most unjust of all taxes, while his deputy, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) declared that the basis of local government finance must be the rating system. Then the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) described the rates as an irrational and highly resented form of taxation. Now we have the hon. Member for Dagenham taking us back to the rates. I do not know how the House would describe that, but I would describe it as dithering—dithering to the extent of chaos.
Whatever the background of the present position, at the next election the electorate will have a choice. Electors will be able to choose our new low-level local tax or go back to the rates with Labour. I have no doubt which the people will choose. Our proposals are neither ill considered nor confused. They are part of a well thought out, co-ordinated approach. We seek consultation on some aspects in order to achieve broad agreement on a durable solution that will be accepted as fair.
We are considering local government in the round—its function and structure, as well as its funding—and we shall introduce our first proposal in a measured and orderly way.

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to consider our valuation base and suggested that it was unsatisfactory. Will he confirm that, under his scheme, there will be a property tax which will involve a valuation tax on each individual property, and that there will be regular revaluations in the system? Has he ruled out capital valuations?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain his impatience until we publish our consultation document.


Today we are debating the Bill. It embodies the first and key component of our plans as well as forming part of the Chancellor's Budget strategy. Its vital contribution is to reduce charge levels to a tolerable level from the inflated levels to which they have been raised by the profligacy of so many high spending councils, feckless in their disregard for the burden that they placed on local residents.

Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with a point that I put in my speech? What is the Government's position in relation to the 18·5 million people whom the Prime Minister has identified as being seriously in arrears on this year's poll tax? I am thinking of the family in Coventry to whom I spoke on the telephone tonight, who have been charged £19 for the 19 days of this financial year for which the mother of the family lived. Do the Government intend to continue with prosecutions in the courts?

Mr. Lang: The Bill is concerned with the year 1991–92 and not with earlier years.
Labour councils may not care about the burden that has been imposed on local residents, but we do. That is why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have acted firmly and decisively. I urge the House not to dither but to give a swift passage to the Bill and bring early relief to every community charge payer in the land and then, in a calmer atmosphere, to proceed towards the establishment of a better arrangement for the funding of local government in this country.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order this day.

Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

Clause 1

STATUTORY REDUCTION OF COMMUNITY CHARGES: ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert—
'Subject to subsection (1A) below and to the making of an Order under this section:'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the same time the following amendments: No. 16, in page 1, line 8, after 'of', insert 'an Order made under'.

No. 25, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at beginning insert—
'Subject to subsection (1A) below and to the making of an Order under this section.'.

No. 29, in clause 3, page 3, line 16, after 'or, insert 'an Order made under'.

No. 47, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall, where he makes an Order under this section to give effect to the reductions specified in subsection (1) above, within one month thereafter issue guidance to charging authorities as to preparatory steps which may be appropriate with respect to—

(a) any proposals he may consider appropriate concerning the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1992; and
(b) proposals concerning the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.
(1B) No guidance shall be issued under subsection (1A) above before the completion by the Secretary of State of consultation with such persons representative of local authorities in England and Wales as appear to him to be concerned.'.

No. 48, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
'(8) Subject to subsections (1A) and ((1B) above, the Secretary of State may by Order give effect to the provisions of subsection (1) above.'.

No. 49, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall, where he makes an Order under this section to give effect to the reductions specified in subsection (1) above, within one month thereafter issue guidance to local authorities as to preparatory steps which may be appropriate with respect to—

(a) any proposals he may consider appropriate concerning the level of local taxation in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1992; and
(b) proposals concerning the possible introduction from that date of any new system of local taxation.

(1B) No guidance shall be issued under subsection (1A) above before the completion by the Secretary of State of consultation with such persons representative of local authorities in Scotland as appear to him to be concerned.'.

No. 50, in clause 3, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
'(9) Subject to subsections (1A) and (1B) above, the Secretary of State may by Order give effect to the provisions of subsection (1) above.'.

Mr. O'Brien: This group of amendments refers in the main to orders that the Secretary of State will make to ensure that the future financing of local government is

sound and fair to those who contribute to local government services and to local authorities which administer those services.
Everybody who works and serves in local government is fed up with the constant changes that have been made to local government taxation in the past 12 years, but more so in the past three years in Scotland and in the past two years in England and Wales. As the Prime Minister and Secretary of State now agree, the poll tax is not acceptable, will not work and is costly to administer and collect. Tonight, we are arguing that it should be abolished. We also want son of poll tax to be abolished.
Clause 1 deals with the statutory reduction in the poll tax for England and Wales. Amendment No. 12 urges the Secretary of State, when making an order under clause 1, to take into consideration the matters detailed in the other amendments in this group. Whether clause 1 reduces the poll tax for all poll tax payers or just a few, as now appears to be the case, we want amendment No. 47 to be given serious consideration.
Amendment No. 12 provides that, before any action is taken, the amendment should come into serious play because the Secretary of State should issue guidance on what he is preparing, what the level will be and the sort of taxation there will be to finance local services for local government in the year commencing I April 1992.
I have two significant questions to put to the Secretary of State about any commitment to abolish the community charge. First, does the new local tax embody any elements of a poll tax? We were told by the Secretary of State on 21 March that the new local tax will comprise
a single bill for each houshold comprising two essential elements, the number of adults living there and the value of the property.
Those, we are told, will be the two essential elements included in any future local government tax bill. In response to a question asked by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) —who advocates the retention of the poll tax—the Secretary of State said that the new tax
combines many of the elements of my right hon. Friend's ideas".
My second question to the Secretary of State relates to timing. When will the new local tax be in place? Amendment No. 47 seeks information about any proposals involving the new system of taxation. What will it entail? Is there to be a register of people who will have to pay the poll tax? The Secretary of State said:
It is perfectly possible that we shall not need a register".
He also said:
I have already said that it is possible in the new arrangements that a register of the sort associated with the community charge will not be necessary. It is a detailed and technical matter that must be looked at. We shall be putting forward in the consultation document a number of options—they are not firm proposals now—to deal with the matter because it is important, as I have said several times, that the local authorities become involved at this stage in advising on the most effective way forward." —[Official Report,21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 404, 408, 409, 415.]
Ministers have said that that is right. May I have an assurance that there will be no register?

Dr. Keith Hampson: Since the Labour party's proposal is to return to the rates, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that there was one basic problem—the rates did not distinguish between the single person and the multi-occupancy of a household? Does he not welcome, therefore, the idea of a consultation


document that might consider the various ways in which a distinction could be made between what those different households pay?

Mr. O'Brien: The rebate scheme sought to distinguish between the single householder and the family, but that scheme was dismantled by the Government. We propose a favourable rebates scheme that will meet the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). If the hon. Gentleman cares to sit through the debate on the next group of amendments, he will hear our precise proposals on the issue that he raised.
Will there be a register? The Minister's silence shows that there will be a register, as there is at present. As we know, that register is totally unworkable. How will the local tax compare with the poll tax before and after the poll tax surcharge on VAT has been levied, and how will it square with the principle enuniciated by the Secretary of State to underpin any form of local tax? The Government will have to answer those questions if we or local government are to have any confidence in the Bill.
In fairness to local government and to poll tax payers, any guidance should be issued within a month of any order, and poll tax payers or ratepayers, whatever the classification, should be afforded fairness in any orders that are made. Our experience of the poll tax legislation over the past three years is that it is unfair. Will the new tax be fair? As we have said, if there had been more time to prepare and more consultation with interested bodies, the flat rate reduction of £140 per poll tax payer could have been applied more fairly. Rebates could have been increased or the 20 per cent. contribution by people on income support could have been abolished. Poll tax could have been reduced proportionately so that some authorities could have levied a low poll tax or none at all. If time had been allowed for consultation, the distribution of the £4·5 billion could have been much fairer.

Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman speaks about fairness. For the education of the Committee, could he give us the comparison between the current community charge levels in, for example, Barking, Dagenham and Ealing and the level of local government contribution that householders in a two-bedroomed house in those places would pay under the system proposed by Labour?

Mr. O'Brien: I have no objection to making comparisons, but if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want to make them, they should tell us how many people in Barking or Dagenham will receive the £140 rebate

Mr. Tracey: Answer my question.

Mr. O'Brien: If we are to have comparisons, let us have some figures from the Government, who are proposing the Bill. As the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not happy with the poll tax., can we assume that he will endeavour to abolish any proposals in the Bill that resemble a poll tax?
10.45 pm
I have here the report of an interview with the Secretary of State in The Times of 10 May last year, at the start of his leadership campaign. In it, he said of the poll tax:
In many of the marginal constituencies by which the tenure of power is determined…is a belief that it is either too high, unfair or both, and it has created a lingering sense of injustice. I have never known so large a postbag—from

those with a life-long commitment to the Tory cause who, having bought their homes, saved to ensure their independence and budgeted carefully for their old age, feel badly let down.
Last May, the Secretary of State was telling everybody that the Tory party had let down its supporters because of the introduction of the poll tax. If he believes in what he said then, he should put that belief into practice and make sure that there is no element of poll tax in the Bill.
The uncertainty of the Government's proposals for local government finance has led members of the Tory party, both inside and outside the House, to suggest all kinds of formulae to ease the pain and problems through which their party is going. Some hon. Members say that there should be a higher VAT charge, some say that we should abolish local tax, some say that we should take some services from local government, including education and the police and fire services. Because of this uncertainty, local authorities will need sufficient time to make the necessary changes if the poll tax is abolished. The Labour party is committed to abolishing the poll tax. We intend to fulfil that commitment.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): The issue before the Committee is one of the most simple that we can debate—whether we should take £140 off the headline community charge of each and every person in the country. The Labour party apparently agrees with the Government on that proposition, because it did not oppose Second Reading.
The second issue before the House is whether the balance of taxation should be as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. The Government have made it clear that they believe that the new balance which is established by the Bill, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be the balance not only for this year but for future years. On this item as well, I believe that the Labour party agrees with the Government.
I believe that for two reasons: first, the Opposition did not oppose the Second Reading; secondly, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he wishes the proportion in future to be about 20 per cent. That implies a slightly higher level of local taxation funding than is brought about by the Bill, but for the moment I shall let that pass; let us say that we are in the same ball park. Again it appears that there is no matter of principle between the two sides.[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dagenham would stop squeaking, "Let's get to the amendment." I am filling the background before dealing with the amendment. My remarks will be seen to be perfectly germane.

Mr. Gould: I simply observed that, if the Minister of State had wanted to speak in the Second Reading debate, he had every opportunity to do so, but as this is not a Second Reading debate, I invite him, through you, Sir Paul, to concentrate on the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

Mr. Portillo: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Perhaps I can now get on with my speech.
The reason for setting out the principles on which the Bill is based—and the principles upon which, apparently, the two parties are agreed—is that, having said that it is in favour of these principles and having failed to oppose the Second Reading, the Labour party now wishes to set up in


the first amendment a series of obstacles to providing people with the £140 reduction in their community charges. Having avoided any public obloquy by opposing the Second Reading—recognising, as it did, that if it had opposed the £140 reduction, the British public would have been extremely angry—in this first amendment the Labour party now tries to make it difficult to make those £140 payments. By indirect means, the Opposition wish, if not to deny people a reduction in their community charge, at least to make it very difficult for that reduction to be made and to delay its delivery. I trust that I am now dealing with the amendment to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Dagenham.

Mr. Gould: indicated assent.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister not feel that those on income support who will continue to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge should have a share in the £4·5 billion? That is the point of the amendment.

Mr. Portillo: They will have a proportionate share of the £4·5 billion. They will get 20 per cent. of the £140, just as they are asked to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. Furthermore, since the hon. Member for Dagenham is so keen that I should stick to the amendment, I ought to point out that a number of other amendments deal more directly with that question. My hon. Friends and I will be pleased to deal with them.
The amendment seeks to introduce into the Bill a series of irrelevancies that have nothing to do with giving people a £140 reduction in their community charge in the coming year. That series of irrelevancies has nothing to do with changing the balance between what is raised in local taxation and what is raised in national taxation. The hon. Member for Normanton asked many questions about the future form of the local tax that we shall introduce. I do not intend to go over my right hon. Friend's statement. It was made only last Thursday. It is as clear as crystal, and it is in everybody's mind. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the review that the Government are conducting was always foreseen as being in phases. So far the phases have been as follows.
We made some changes to the community charge reduction scheme, which benefited millions of people. In the Budget, we announced a reduction in the community charge of £140, the headline figure. Last Thursday, we made a statement on finance, structure and functions. That process will be followed by consultations during the summer, to be followed by legislation, which I expect will be introduced in the autumn. That is a clear series of stages in the review.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman asked me to give him guidance—I do not know whether that was a slip of the tongue—on what the level of taxation would be on 1 April 1992. I have no difficulty in answering that question. The level of taxation will be as it is today. The balance between local taxation and national taxation will be as has been set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the form of taxation in place on 1 April 1992 will be the community charge. We have made it clear that we hope to be able to introduce the local tax by 1 April 1993.

Mr. David Blunkett: Can the Minister tell us what the Chancellor meant when he suggested yesterday that, in the coming year, the VAT increase would not raise sufficient funds to cover the allocation that is now being made? I refer the Minister to column 700 of the Official Report. What taxes was the Chancellor referring to when he suggested that other increases were necessary to achieve the Government's goals?

Mr. Portillo: I do not have column 700 of Hansard at hand, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in summing up yesterday, said that the VAT increase and the Government's objective of reducing the average amount actually paid in community charge to a figure below £175 would enable us to make further changes in the community charge reduction scheme, to which I referred later yesterday in the debate on the money resolution relating to this Bill.
The matters with which this amendment deals are irrelevancies. There is absolutely no need to delay the introduction of the reduction of £140 while the Labour party seeks further clarification of our proposals. Those proposals will be clarified fairly shortly, in line with the timetable that I set out this evening, which confirmed the timetable that the Government had set out earlier. I urge Labour Members that it is not in their interests to display to the British public that their objective is to put hurdles in the way of the introduction of the reduction of £140 in the headline figure of community charge. Certainly my hon. Friends take the view that we should implement the reduction as soon as possible, and therefore that the amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall be very brief.
It seems that the Minister has got himself into a bad mood at the start of these proceedings. I do not know why he should resent the expenditure of a little time to ensure that this Bill will achieve its stated purpose. We have got past the Second Reading. I do not now why the Minister even expected anyone to vote against the Bill, or even to delay the proceedings unnecessarily. Indeed, I suggested to him that the guillotine was unnecessary. The evidence that that contention was right seems to be mounting. The Minister is indeed a little out of sorts.
We have been told that the purpose of the Bill is to achieve a reduction of £140 in the headline poll tax level for every charge payer in the country. That was quite specific, but it does not appear to be what the Bill achieves. Substantial numbers of people will not have their poll tax bills reduced by £140 from the headline level.
I do not know why the Minister wants to cause this confusion. He can tell us why, in his view, it would not be appropriate to give additional relief to those who are already benefiting from the transitional relief scheme and the extension of that scheme that has been announced. It would be perfectly proper for him to rest on that case, but what good is served by leading a great many people to expect a greater reduction than they will actually get?
Ministers have been through this once already. A previous Secretary of State announced at his party conference that nobody would have to pay more than a certain amount above the previous rates, but all the complications were left out. Lots of people suddenly found that that did not apply to them. It applied only on the basis


of the Government's definition of the charge—not on the basis of the charges set by local authorities, almost all of which, whatever the political part n in power, were higher. If people had moved house, and for all sorts of other reasons it did not apply.
There is no benefit to anybody in pretending that the Bill does other than what it actually does. Let the Minister advance his case about the precise level of relief, and not pretend that people will get reductions that they will not get. Otherwise, there will be enormous disappointment and great irritation, and the disfavour that the Government already suffer will be increased. These proceedings could be advanced more quickly and more successfully if people stopped making grand and exaggerated claims.
If the Minister agrees to do that, I shall be happy not to make any more grand claims about local income tax for most of the night, because the case for it is clearly made out.

11pm

Mr. Harry Barnes: The key amendment is No. 47, which deals with the arrangements for moving towards 1992. I tabled amendments Nos. 51 and 52 in an attempt to tackle the problem. The Bill applies only to the coming year and does nothing about the position after that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) expressed great concern about registration. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland have given different answers on the subject. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
It is perfectly possible that we shall not need a register to administer the tax.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), he said:
No one has raised this issue as a problem in the course of designing it. No one has raised it with me as a problem in moving from the community charge to the local tax, so I have no reason to suppose that there is any problem that I must account for.
Now it is a matter of ignorance. The issue has not been brought to the Secretary of State's attention, so he has not thought about it. It is not that there is to be no register.
The matter would have been considered if the Secretary of State for the Environment had accepted my offer in January to discuss the impact of registration. Two months later, I received a letter from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) saying that there was no time to pursue that matter. Yet the impact of the poll tax on the electoral register is of considerable concern. Some 600,000 people are missing from the electoral register compared with last year and taking into account the number of people over 18 years old in the population. Interestingly, the Government refuse to answer questions about' the number of people on current electoral registers, which would allow us to judge whether the poll tax has resulted in an improvement or a worsening of that trend.
The Secretary of State for the Environment than told me:
under the new system we shall not need a register. I have made that clear. Answers to such questions will be clear in the consultation document.
Yet the Secretary of State for Scotland told my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald):

Clearly, there will have to be some kind of register, as there is with any kind of local tax." —[Official Report,21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 409–22, 474.]
We need to know whether there is to be a register. The existence of such a register is of considerable importance. If the electoral register is to be used, the system envisaged will be a direct tax upon the franchise. If another form of register is to be used, such as the one that we have experienced, it will be an indirect tax upon the franchise and will have an equally serious effect.
Every hon. Member should be concerned to protect the existence of the franchise. The House should pride itself on having extended the franchise until this Government came along and implemented the poll tax. I hope that the issue of the register will be taken into account.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Census (Confidentiality) Bill was designed to reassure people that there was no link between the collection of the 10-yearly census information and the compilation of a poll tax register, which many people felt would prejudice the accurate collection of information on the census? Will he further confirm that the Government will not protect the electoral register in the same way, because they have probably worked out that the bulk of the 600,000 who have disappeared from the electoral register were hardly likely to have voted Tory in the first place? Therefore, the Government are trying to fiddle the franchise in order to fiddle the next election result.

Mr. Barnes: It would be serious enough if 600,000 people were missing randomly, across the political spectrum: everyone should have the right to exercise the franchise. But for 600,000 people whose views point in a particular direction to be missing is ghastly—especially given the present first-past-the-post electoral system, which means that the impact need only be felt in a number of marginal seats for a fantastic general election result to follow.
We should feel deeply concerned about the fixing and fiddling of general election results. The Census (Confidentiality) Bill recognised the problem, but if the register is not to disappear altogether, we shall need an Electoral Registration (Confidentiality) Bill to protect it from the effects of poll tax registration.
This is probably the most serious impact on democracy that the poll tax has had. Its knock-on consequences have hit the very foundations of the British constitution. Constitutional lawyers would surely consider electoral registration not just another statute, but one of the key statutes that are equivalent in this country to a written constitution.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I think that the Minister was joking when he said that Opposition Members were not concerned about the £140 that would be taken off poll tax bills. Let me tell him that many people would be grateful if just a few pounds were taken off their bills, because of the misery that they are now experiencing. With a little more thought, that £140 could have been targeted much more appropriately—it could have gone where it is really needed. It is not too late for the Minister to act. His concern for the Labour party is very touching, but I can tell him now that the country is ready to judge him. If his performance on "Newsnight" is anything to go by, I do not rate his chances of re-election very highly—he really got his come-uppance there.
Amendment No. 47 is a probing amendment. We want to know the Government's plans for future taxation. We are saying, "Please tell us that you are going to abolish the poll tax—although no Opposition Member thinks that you will, given the deep divisions within your party." There is a split from top to bottom of the Conservative party, with the Secretary of State wanting a property tax and half the rest of the party wanting a poll tax.
As my hon. Friends have said repeatedly this evening, we have ended up with a three-tax system. The Minister has a duty to tell us what he is going to do. We need to know about future taxation, given what the Chancellor has done with VAT. As has also been said repeatedly this evening, people in receipt of income support will benefit very little from the £140 rebate, but will pay much more VAT on what they buy. They will receive 54p a week from this giveaway, which in practical terms is no more than a bribe to enable the Conservatives to win the next election.[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.

Mrs. Mahon: If people spend £22 on goods that are liable to VAT, they become losers. It is easy to do that. I obtained a list from the Library of items liable to VAT. It included fruit juice, sweets, hot takeaway food, fish and chips, hamburgers, telephones, biscuits and toilet items, which people use every day. Once a child reaches 13 or 14, he goes into adult clothes, which are liable to VAT. It is important that we know about these matters.
The Minister and the Secretary of State cannot get away with going on about Wandsworth and Westminster. People in Halifax will want to know why they have to pay extra on a pint of beer so that the rich fat cats of Westminster and Wandsworth can get their services for nothing. Clearly it is not fair. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that it is a fair tax?
The Minister must also tell us when he will abolish the poll tax. We all know that he will not abolish the tax, but we must keep pushing and probing. We must say to him, "Take that silly grin off your face. You have lost heavily and you will lose the next election heavily. Start giving some truthful answers at the Dispatch Box." The Minister has wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the foolish ideological flagship of the previous Prime Minister and her Government. If Ministers were councillors, they would be surcharged out of existence. It is a disgrace.
Every time I think about the wasted £14 billion, I think about hospitals that have shut, wards that have closed and schools that are scrimping and saving. I visited a school in my constituency last Friday which had classrooms propped up with steel bars. Every time I think about the £14 billion, I think about what we could have been spending on services. For the Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box with the arrogance that is symptomatic of Conservative Ministers and pretend that it does not matter and that the Opposition are playing games is disgraceful. Let him get on his feet and tell us now what he intends to do about the poll tax.

Mr. O'Brien: I wish to reiterate what I said earlier. There are two significant questions that I will put to the Minister. First, is there to be a poll tax element in the new tax system? We have been told that the new tax system will

comprise two significant elements—the number of adults living in the household and the value of the property. Will the Minister confirm that the tax will include a poll tax element, or will he deny that? Secondly, I asked whether we could be told when the new local tax would be in place. Many people inside and outside the House want to know when the changes will be made.
I raised the point about a fairer distribution of the £4·5 billion. If there had been more time available and consultation with interested bodies and organisations, I am sure that there would have been a fairer distribution through abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution to be paid by people on income support. There could be a greater review of the issue of whether poorer people who have to pay the poll tax could be given a greater rebate. Those matters will be discussed later. We want answers on those issues. I ask the Minister to address just two points: will there be a poll tax element, and when will the new tax system be put into place?

Mr. Portillo: Although I spoke for only about five minutes at the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) accused me of being out of sorts, while the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) accused me of joking and having a silly grin on my face. I do not believe that those descriptions are consistent.
I have already dealt with the questions that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has just reiterated. I specifically told the hon. Gentleman that is our ambition that the local tax should be in place on 1 April 1993. The hon. Gentleman rightly identified the two elements of the local tax, but I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's statement on that, which was extremely clear.
The hon. Gentleman called on us to consult about the distribution of the £4·3 billion, but his hon. Friends have spent much of the day deriding us for so consulting. However, his hon. Friends have also spent much of the day praising the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but he said that, on matters of taxation, which certainly includes the Budget, it is not possible to consult.

Mr. John Maxton: We have got no details on the new tax and no legislation on those details is in the pipeline—two separate Bills will be needed for Scotland and for England and Wales. All the experts I have spoken to—finance officers and registration officers—in local government in Scotland say that it is impossible to introduce the tax by 1 April 1993. Those people are not elected members of authorities, but officials. Has the Minister had any conversations with those officials on the practicalities of the proposed tax?

Mr. Portillo: I reiterate that it is our ambition to introduce it by 1 April 1993.
It is interesting to note that, when the Government introduce a proposal, suddenly the Labour party says that it is impossible to do it so quickly. For the past couple of years, however, the Labour party has told us that one can do things overnight. I do not believe that the Labour party could even go back to the rates overnight—a proposal which would be deeply unpopular with and resented by the people.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was worried that I had misrepresented the Bill, but I thought


that I was careful to talk about £140 off the headline charge. In a response to a previous intervention from the hon. Member for Normanton, I discussed the position of those on benefits. The reduction in their bills would be £28, which is absolutely right since it is in proportion to the 20 per cent. of the charge that they are paying. I cannot accept that I have misrepresented what the Bill is about.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was concerned about people who have left the electoral register. Perhaps he believes that they have done so to avoid paying the community charge, but the hon. Gentleman should consider what I said in the House on 13 March when I pointed out that a Labour party newspaper had carried an advertisement headed "Don't Register, Don't Pay". The hon. Gentleman may complain about people not registering, but he should acknowledge that the origin of that action is advice carried in a Labour party newspaper.

Mr. Harry Barnes: That paper is not an official Labour party document. Non-registration has occurred not because of a specific tactic encouraging it, but because people in desperate circumstances have ducked for cover. The bulk of such people are those coming up to 18. Statistics show that that has happened in Scotland and then in Wales and England. It has not happened in Northern Ireland, where the rate of registration by those attaining 18 is healthy.
The nature of the poll tax is unbearable, and some people have sold their franchise rights in desperation. No one should be placed in that situation, which undermines the Representation of the People Act 1983. If that Act has a higher constitutional standing than the poll tax, that tax is legally at fault, not the electoral registration law.

Mr. Portillo: I have no responsibility for electoral registration, which merely serves to emphasise the distinction that exists between community charge and electoral registers—they are two entirely separate registers. Having said that I have no responsibility for it, I am advised that there is no statistical evidence that the community charge is affecting the level of electoral registration. One of the effects of the community charge seems to be that there has been higher participation in local elections. More people are voting in local elections because they are more aware of the choices that they are being called upon to make.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: This year in Birmingham, there are still only about 705,000 people on the poll tax register. We are pleased to declare that there are 730,000 on the electoral register as a result of a deliberate campaign by the local authority to improve registration, which is now thought to be 97 per cent., because we got across to the people of the country and of our city that the only way to get rid of the poll tax was to register and to vote it away. There are some cities in the country where there has been a deplorable lack of efficiency—in particular, one area in London where they have lost 7,000 people off the electoral register. Frankly, that is a damned disgrace for the people in charge of that authority.

Mr. Portillo: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the only way that people can vote for or against anything is by being on the electoral register. I am sure that, from our different points of view, we all support the

maximum number of people being on the electoral register, so that they can vote for the things that we believe in and against those that do them harm. I certainly urge them to register in large numbers. Fortunately, in the local elections in London last year, people voted against a lot of things that did them harm in what were formerly Labour boroughs.
After this further discussion, I still find no reason why the reductions of £140 for community charge payers should be delayed, as proposed in these amendments, and I continue to urge my hon. Friends to ensure that they are not accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 5, after 'amount', insert
'payable by any person liable either to pay in full a personal community charge, or to pay a charge reduced from such an amount under the Community Charge reduction scheme.'.

The First Deputy Chairman:: With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 8, after 'reduced', insert
'In respect of such a person'.
Amendment No. 21, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) Any amount payable by any person entitled to a rebate of 80 per cent. of a personal community charge shall from the relevant day be reduced in respect of the 1991 financial year by such sum in each case as will reduce the amount to £0.'.
Amendment No. 28, in clause 3, page 3, line 15, after `year', insert
'(and payable by a person liable either to pay in full such a charge, or to pay a charge reduced from that amount under the Community Charge reduction scheme)'.
Amendment No. 32, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
'(1A) The amount payable by a person entitled to a rebate of 80 per cent. of a personal community charge shall in respect of the 1991 financial year be reduced by such an amount as will reduce the amount to £0.'.
Amendment No. 35, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
'(3C) Notwithstanding anything in the 1987 Act, student nurses over the age of eighteen in full time training shall be absolved from payment when such payment would have been less than £140.'.
Amendment No. 36, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) Notwithstanding anything in the 1987 Act, a person who is deemed to be liable for the community charge at the reduced rate of 20 per cent. shall be absolved from payment when such payment would have been less than £140.'.
Amendment No. 37, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
'(3B) Notwithstanding anything in the 1987 Act, a person over the age of eighteen in full time education shall be absolved from payment when such payment would have been less than £140.'.
New clause 2—The 20 per cent. contribution in England and Wales—
`( ) The charging authority shall, from the relevant date, no longer seek payments from those who would otherwise be required to pay 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.'.
New clause 3—The 20 per cent. contribution in Scotland—
`( ) The local authority shall, from the relevant date, no longer seek payments from those who would otherwise be required to pay 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.'.

Mr. Maxton: This group of amendments deals with the rebate system and the 20 per cent. minimum payment. It deals directly with an issue that the Government could deal with. It does not delay payment in any way and it will not cause any great problems for the Government, but we consider it to be vital.
I have been around the poll tax for longer than most hon. Members. I spoke in and wound up the Second Reading debate on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill for the Opposition in December 1986. It seemed to come as a surprise to English Tory Members in our earlier debate that poll tax legislation for Scotland was introduced before the last general election.
I led the Labour party through the Committee stage of that Bill. It was a long and arduous task. Almost everything that Conservative Members have been saying about the poll tax—about its unworkability, the problems of collection and its unfairness—we mentioned in Committee during the winter of 1987, four years ago. We have continued to tell Conservative Members, over and over again, that that was what was wrong with the poll tax—it was unfair, unworkable and difficult to collect—and that they would have enormous problems with it. Even the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has privately admitted that I was right. I hope that he does not mind my repeating it. When I said that the poll tax would not be popular, he pooh-poohed the idea. He thought that the poll tax was one of the greatest election winners that the Tories had ever had. He now admits that, although, in his view, the poll tax is still right in principle, I was right to describe it as "very unworkable".
I do not believe that Opposition Members should now calmly accept things, stand back and say, "Oh well, at long last, the Government have learnt the lesson." Why should we simply accept that we suddenly have a lot of converts to our views among Conservative Members? The Government are now begging us to talk to them and to have discussions with them about all the various options that they are outlining. I say to them, "You're too late. We told you what was wrong. You had the opportunity to amend the provisions, and you never learn from your mistakes."
There is one thing on which I take issue with some of my hon. Friends. It is the description of the poll tax as the "flagship". The late Prime Minister certainly described it as such—[HON. MEMBERS: "Former."] Yes, I accept that. I should have said "the former Prime Minister". I know that the hon. Member for Stirling is one of those who is waiting for the time when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is Prime Minister again. The former Prime Minister certainly described the poll tax as the "flagship", but a flagship is not born in blind panic.

Mr. David Winnick: If it comes to a choice between Conservative Members who supported the principle of the poll tax and those right hon. and hon. Members, many in government, who had no time for the poll tax but who, for career reasons, went along with it, defended it and apologised for it, does my hon. Friend agree that, while that may have been fair of the former Prime Minister, it is the latter whom we should hold in contempt much more than the former?

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has a point, but I hold both of them in fairly equal contempt—those in the first group who still believe in the poll tax because they are

stupid, and those in the second group because they are dishonest. Accordingly, both are worthy of our contempt. Some Conservative Members are now saying that they were always against the poll tax but did not resign from the Cabinet at that time because it was such a key issue.
The poll tax was born in blind panic. In 1985, the Tories—rightly, in our view—revalued properties for domestic and commercial rates—[Interruption.] We did not oppose that revaluation when the Tory Government introduced it. They then got into a total blind panic over it and refused to raise revenue support grant to ensure that the impact of the revalution did not hit their voters hardest.
Suddenly, the true Tories—the Eastwood, Stirling, and Bearsden Tories—started to say that they would not vote Tory again. The Tories went down to 12 per cent. in the opinion polls in Scotland. Only 12 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland said that they would vote Tory. Then what happened? The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), went on to the platform at the Tory party conference and, faced with opposition from Tory voters at the conference said, "Rates are no longer an alternative. We are not going to keep them."
Suddenly, of course, the Tories had to find an alternative. That was the first time they were faced with that problem, because until then they had said, in their 1983 White Paper for example, that rates were the system of local government finance that they would have for the foreseeable future. Suddenly, however, the rates were to go. The Secretary of State for Scotland said it, and the former Prime Minister backed him and said the same. The Tory party suddenly had to find an alternative and the only thing that they could come up with was to go to the hon. Member for Stirling, whose scheme for a poll tax they had derided. That is how the poll tax was born. It was born in a panic, and it is now dying in a panic.
If, in 1985, the Government had found something like £250 million for Scotland and given it as rate support grant instead of introducing a poll tax, they would not have had to abolish the rates—and £250 million would have been a small sum in comparison with what they are now having to find to bail themselves out of the poll tax. If they had done that, rate bills would not have gone up, they would not have had to abolish rates and the crisis that we are now in would never have arisen.
At the core of the legislation when it eventually came was the absurd idea that everybody, with the exception of the mentally handicapped, had to pay something. We even had problems persuading the Government to accept that they should not be taxed. The poorest, the unemployed, the old-age pensioners, the physically disabled and even some mentally handicapped people had to pay at least 20 per cent. At the core of what we are trying to do in the amendments is an attempt to right for the next financial year that wrong done to so many people.
11.30 pm
The requirement to pay 20 per cent. has probably created more problems for the Government than anything else. Despite claims from the SNP about non-payment, about 80 per cent. of the people in Scotland who have not paid are on rebates. The vast majority of the 80 per cent are on the maximum rebate and have to find just the 20 per cent. There are 800,000 people in Scotland on that minimum payment. If we add to that total students,


student nurses and other groups on the minimum 20 per cent., we find that close to one third of all eligible poll tax payers supposedly have to find only 20 per cent.
The collection of the 20 per cent. causes enormous administrative problems for local authorities. We are talking about a payment of £80 to £90 per head. That might be reduced marginally by the Bill. The 800,000 will not get the reduction of £140; all they will get is a reduction of £28. Their poll tax will not be wiped out, as will happen to the wealthy people in Wandsworth and Westminster. They will still have to pay something.
As well as it being grossly unfair that some people should have to pay 20 per cent., collection causes great difficulty for all local authorities, not just Labour-controlled authorities. We suggest that the Government should use a comparatively small amount of the money that they are making available to local authorities to get rid of the 20 per cent. payment.
I am told that the amounts required to do away with the 20 per cent. would be £300,000 out of £4·3 billion for the United Kingdom and £30 million out of £500 million for Scotland. Instead of a reduction of £140 in everybody's poll tax, there would be a reduction of about £125. With three people in my household paying the poll tax, under the Bill we will benefit by £300-odd. I would be happy to accept a lower reduction in my poll tax to ensure that the poor do not have to pay anything. I am sure that all my hon. Friends would be happy to have a smaller reduction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Write a cheque.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says, "Write a cheque." For what purpose and to whom?

Mr. Bennett: To the Treasury.

Mr. Maxton: Fine. We know what happens to cheques written to the Treasury. They soon disappear into other things. Certainly, under this Government, the poor would never get the benefit of any cheque that I wrote to the Treasury.
The simple fact is that the Government have an opportunity to right one of the wrongs of their poll tax system. They have an opportunity to get rid of the 20 per cent. minimum and improve the rebate system. They ought also to backdate rebates to 1 April 1989 in Scotland to take out of the system people who should have had a rebate but never received it or never claimed it. They now face two years of full bills. It would cost a small sum of money compared with the total to take those people out of the system, and it would right enormous wrongs. It would also reduce the administrative burdens on local authorities.
I have been pleading for the 20 per cent. minimum to be removed—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will admit that—ever since it was introduced. I have certainly argued that case during the past two years in the House at Question Time and after Question Time. The Government now have an opportunity to do it. I hope that they will take it. However, despite my pleas, not only do I expect not to achieve the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum payment now, but it is unclear whether the same 20 per cent. minimum payment will remain under the new tax. We simply do not know. What we know from the Scottish Office, however, shows that the 20 per cent. will remain.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood, who will reply to the debate, will take this opportunity to show a little generosity. I am not asking much. I am not asking his constituents to give up large sums of money. It is just a small amount to help the poorest in our society, such as my constituents who live in Castlemilk, Easterhouse and Drumchapel. Getting rid of the 20 per cent. payment would remove an oppressive tax from them. Let that be the first step towards abolition of the tax, followed by the introduction of a fair rating system, which is the only method which can replace the poll tax fairly.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wish to make a brief speech.
My credentials are as good as those of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I too, perhaps from a different perspective, have argued the case for removing the ceiling on rebates for the community charge. I started doing so when the idea was first mooted in the 1985 Green Paper on social security reform. The first real evidence of independent worries about the issue was in the Social Security Advisory Committee report of that year. It said:
Our concern is twofold: first, and most important, we believe that the proposal
to put a ceiling on rebates for community charge
could cause real hardship to many claimants, especially those on income support; and second, the proposal will cause local authorities extra administrative difficulties, and therefore higher administrative costs, at a time when the Government is committed to simplifying administration and controlling costs.
The committee's words in 1985 have come true. The Government were silly not to heed such independent advice. The Social Security Advisory Committee was not the only body to warn against the proposal. Other bodies did so, as did the hon. Member for Cathcart and I in the House. Those warnings went unheeded, and we all see the result this evening.
My purpose is briefly to speak to new clauses 2 and 3 tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. While those new clauses may be technically incompetent, they are clear in their intention to try to persuade the Government at this eleventh hour to contemplate the abolition of the ceiling on rebates. It is important for the Minister to talk about the number of people who are caught by the ceiling on rebates and how much money is involved. In the debates in 1985 and 1986, the comments seemed unrealistic in terms of the sums involved and the impact that they were having.
Before the ceiling on rebates was introduced, about 3 million people were eligible for a 100 per cent. rebate on their rates under the old local government system. A further 4 million people had a partial rate rebate. Today, nobody gets a 100 per cent. rebate, so that significant change has had a considerable impact, particularly on low-income families.
The Government's justification for the change was that it would improve the link between payment and the use of services—that in some magical way there would be a resurgence in interest in what town halls and local authorities throughout the country were doing. There is little evidence, if that was the intention, that it was well founded.
Even people who follow these issues closely cannot make a direct correlation between Government grants, specific grants and the various means by which local


government finance is provided by central Government and other sources; so they cannot make a comparison between what was previously being spent on their behalf by local authorities and what was spent following the introduction of the so-called system of accountability.
If the Government are looking for a system that gives more accountability in local government, they should examine the way in which local authorities are elected. A system of electoral reform that included proportional representation would give a more sensitive system to meet the needs and wishes of local people.
From a social security point of view, the £1·30 increase in income support that was given in 1987 to try to compensate people for paying a 20 per cent. contribution towards the poll tax was totally inadequate and reduced the already meagre levels of income support available to many claimants. About 17,000 claimants north of the border are now having deductions taken from their income support payments to make contributions towards poll tax arrears. That is a scandal and a disgrace.
I remind the Committee that, on their proposal to impose a ceiling on the rebate system, the Government were defeated in the other place in June 1986. Their Lordships withdrew a provision designed to impose a cap on the poll tax rebate system. The Government were wrong to reintroduce the proposal and reverse in this House that decision of the other place. We have been paying the price for that ever since.
Experience of the ceiling on the poll tax rebate for the last two or three years has revealed a two-tier system of local government. There is the kind of local government that can be provided and paid for in relatively stable areas of population, such as in the borders and my constituency, where there is less of a turnover in population and the people are perhaps more law-abiding than in other parts of the country. That applies to my constituent, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). It certainly applies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who pays his debts, is kind to animals and treats his wife well.
In districts such as the borders, there is a stable population, so it is much easier for the poll tax to be administered and collection rates can be more than 90 per cent. to a semi-reasonable extent. But it is impossible to do so in urban districts such as Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Dundee. The Audit Commission has found it impossible to achieve those relatively high levels of collection in such regions. That is the inevitable consequence of the development of a two-tier system of local government.
The level of services one can enjoy depends on where one lives. If one lives in an urban context, one's services are reduced, but if one lives in a landward district, the services tend to be better financed and better provided. It is wrong that such a consequence should flow from poll tax legislation.
11.45 pm
It is absurd when the amount to be collected from many people will be less than the cost of collecting the tax. That cannot be sensible in any system. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) told me earlier this evening that the poll tax contribution to be solicited from students in Shetland is £9, but it will cost

nearly three times that amount to collect that poll tax from students, which seems to be completely stupid. That contrasts with the provisions now being made for Wandsworth, where, by and large, residents can easily afford to pay for local services. They will not now be paying anything. The principle that everyone pays is clearly no longer the case.
As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the Scottish experience is that a significant number of those facing action as a result of non-payment, certainly in Scotland, are those paying the 20 per cent. contribution. The latest estimate is that 70 per cent. of those facing court action in Scotland are 20 per cent. contributors. That is quite wrong, and the Government should do something to put it right.
In its report earlier this month, the Audit Commission showed that 30 per cent. of authorities reported a significant problem of unprocessed benefit applications. That is wrong and the Government should do something about it. Clearly, the costs of collecting the poll tax previously, today and in future are fixed. The Government should recognise that, as they should recognise that many people are suffering great hardship—most of them income support claimants and many of them pensioners. They are being subjected to the 20 per cent. contribution, which is immoral, unjust and an administrative nightmare. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of the amendments, at this eleventh hour, to make sensible changes to make the system much better, more easily administered and much fairer to those who are least able to pay.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I did not intend to speak this evening, and I shall be brief. I want to make only one point. I am grateful for what the Government have done. I have been implacably opposed to this tax from the word go, as Opposition Members know. I did not support it at any stage. But we are now moving rapidly towards its abolition, for which I am extremely grateful. I believe that the Government are entirely right to consult widely to get the system right.
The 20 per cent. contribution system is nonsense. Its collection costs are often more than the sum collected. I discussed collection with the treasurer in south Staffordshire a fortnight ago. It is a prudently managed authority, where about 93 per cent. of the tax has already been collected this year. It is not a question of being unable to collect the tax or of having constituents who do not pay. The cost of collecting the contribution of those who pay only 20 per cent. of the charge far exceeds the yield. That applies especially to students, who quite legitimately might have two or three abodes in the course of a year.
I accept that we are debating an interim measure, and I fully understand the Government's line. I hope that, when the new system is in place, people who at the moment qualify for 80 per cent. rebate will not be charged. We should not charge the non-earning spouse, the student or the non-householder over the age of 70. I hope that we can look at the detail of such matters and that we shall do so quickly. In future, may we please have no 20 per centers?

Mr. Dick Douglas: This is an interesting debate. Amendments Nos. 35 and 42 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relate to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). Experience in Scotland has


clearly shown that the poll tax has failed not just because of its unfairness and injustice, but because in many areas it is uncollectable. That is not because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) averred, I and others have suggested that people should not pay and have led them into debt, but manifestly because people on low incomes do not have the resources to pay.
The hon. Member for Garscadden yawns. I am sorry if I am boring him. He cannot say that 80 per cent. of those who are not paying cannot pay while at the same time saying that they should obey the law and pay. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is in her place—

Mr. John Battle: The hon. Gentleman has called off his non-payment campaign.

Mr. Douglas: We had it for some time in Scotland. People like the hon. Gentleman do not worry me in the slightest. Dinna fash yoursel'. Haud your wheesht. Belt up. On 15 September 1988, the hon. Member for Maryhill said:
Non-payment is for us an act of solidarity with those who won't pay because they can't pay.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Douglas: I am happy to do so.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman will recall that those were my sentiments, and I still think that embarking upon such a campaign was justified at that time. However, when Strathclyde regional council later found itself in extreme financial difficulties and faced the prospect of paying off staff, especially low-paid staff, some of us changed our minds and decided to pay up. Plainly, the hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, because he waited until his party had abandoned its non-payment campaign. When he s me, perhaps he would the record in full.

Mr. Douglas: People are entitled to change their minds. [Interruption.] It is one thing to have a change of mind when the poll tax is manifestly dead; it is quite another to tell people in legalistic terms, as the hon. Member for Garscadden has, that people should pay because it is the law, when he knows that they cannot pay.
The hon. Member for Garscadden spoke earlier about those with senile dementia, and the hon. Member for Cathcart spoke of the severely mentally handicapped. Both hon. Members know the fight that Opposition parties put up to have those groups excluded. Time and again, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was impossible to exclude those suffering from senile dementia.
The Scottish National party asked the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland what people should do, and he kept advising them to pay. The tax has now been defeated not because of what happened in the House but because of what happened outside. I believe passionately in parliamentary democracy, but a balance has to be struck, and that element should not be put on too high a pinnacle. When the Prime Minister tells people outside the House that votes cast against his party and its policies in a by-election are rubbish bin votes, and when people demonstrate because that is their only way to protest against the onerous tax, and when these factors are ignored, particularly in Scotland, people are left with little

alternative but to defeat the tax by not paying it. That course of action is still advocated by some on the Opposition Benches.
Non-payment has made a significant contribution to non-collectibility. What advice is the hon. Member for Garscadden giving local authorities in Scotland? They are pursing diligence on the very people who he has said cannot pay.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhonnda): The hon. Gentleman talked about rubbish bin votes. What would happen in his community if nobody paid the tax? In the past couple of years, has he put out rubbish bins? If so, who has paid for them to be collected? What will happen to old people's homes, social services and other facilities if no one pays the tax? He does not have the sole lien on non-payment or opposition to the poll tax. Many of us thought that, if local services were to be maintained for those who needed them, we should have to pay the tax.

Mr. Douglas: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I come back to my initial position. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on Scottish matters cannot say that 80 per cent. of those who are not paying cannot pay but that they ought to obey the law and pay. There is an inherent contradiction there. I am asking the hon. Members for Cathcart and for Garscadden whether, through the Labour party, they are telling local authorities in Scotland to desist from diligence because of the onerous nature of the imposition of poinding, and from threatening warrant sales on those people. They should desist from making sheriff orders—there have been 300,000 in Strathclyde alone—and from hounding the very people whom hon. Members have said cannot pay. I will give way to the hon. Member for Garscadden on this point, but he is silent when asked what advice he will give.

Mr. Dewar: I should be more inclined to take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously if, when he offers himself to his electorate, who know him well, he gets elected.

Mr. Douglas: When I stood for election in 1987, I made it patently clear that I would not pay. The Labour party went about lying in their teeth about me. I lost my honorary membership of the National Union of Mineworkers because honourable people like them—I use the word "honourable" loosely—went about telling lies. If the hon. Member for Garscadden wants me to give way again, I am willing to do so. We know what happened in Scotland. We have the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities figures. It argues that, because of nonpayment in Scotland, at present no recovery action can be taken against non-payers until they are three months or more in arrears, and that, on such a timetable, it would not be fully possible to pursue non-payers until October or November next year.
12 am
We know that the system of local authority finance is collapsing. I told the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) ages ago that, if a Labour Government came to power on a Thursday, no one in Scotland would pay the poll tax the following Monday. I asked them what they would do then, and what interim measure they would put in place.
The Government have produced an interim measure. It is not entirely satisfactory, but the House has chosen not to vote against it. In effect, it is a concealed income tax. I


do not know anyone who pays taxes out of anything other than income, but some Conservative Members may take a different view. On both sides this is a huge facade—a farrago—to establish other taxation systems to collect £1 in every £10 of local authority revenue.
Would the Labour party repeal this measure if it came to power after the next election? Of course it would repeal the poll tax, but what would it put in its place? It would put some form of rating in its place. How long would that take? It would take two or three years. The hon. Member for Garscadden said this morning that the Labour party could do it by April—April of the following year. That would be an interim measure. The Scottish National party has submitted to the Secretary of State details of a local income tax that could be introduced very quickly in Scotland.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the amendments that are before the Committee. I hope that he will return to them.

Mr. Douglas: With great respect, Mr. Walker, I am suggesting that, if we had a local income tax, those who could not pay—assessed in relation to their income—would not pay. That is a fair system of taxation. That is what the amendments deal with—the poorer sections of the population who should not be brought into the local government taxation system anyhow, for the simple reason that the idea that everybody should make a contribution to local authority revenue is nothing but a lot of damned nonsense.
When we ask Conservative Members about Wandsworth, their reply is, "Ah, but people in Wandsworth pay for it through general taxation." So why not relate ability to pay to general taxation? We were told earlier that this was an interim measure. The Secretary of State suggested that the value added tax to be used as a supplement this year will not be available next year and that, under rate support grant measures, general revenue will be used.
We have argued very forcefully that the poorest sections of the population—students, student nurses, people on income support, the disabled, the unemployed—should not be brought within the orbit of the tax because it is clear that they cannot pay.
However, if there is a vote on amendment No. 15, the Government's majority will undoubtedly carry the day. I hope that the Government will ultimately consider a system of taxation that excludes certain people. What is needed, particularly in Scotland, is a system that takes account of people's ability to pay. Our figures were rubbished simultaneously by the Government and the Labour party. Scotland could have a local income tax to replace the 10 per cent. or thereabouts that would come from the residue of the poll tax. The cost would be 3p or 4p in the pound. The system could be authorised by an independent Scottish parliament and operated by that parliament through, and in harmony with, single-tier local authorities. That will not be possible if the Government persist with the stupid notion that everyone must pay for local services.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Having attended all the poll tax debates, including those relating to Scotland, I never cease to be amazed at the way the Scottish National party attacks the Labour party more

than it attacks the Tories. My impression has not been changed by the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No.
The amendments before the Committee relate to people who, by definition, are the poorest in the country. People who have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax are required to pay 100 per cent. of the water rates. Like all other hon. Members, I have constituents who pay water rates amounting to twice the poll tax charge. They do not quite understand that. It is beyond belief that anyone should be asked to pay a water rate of £150 in respect of a two-bedroom inner-city flat in Birmingham. For such people, the poll tax is the last straw.
Let us be clear what will happen when the Bill is on the statute book. I take the Labour party view. Even if guillotines and other devices have been used, a tax that has been approved by Parliament is legal. We know, however, that this tax is immoral and unfair. Money has to be collected to pay for the services required by the poor and the disabled. People who cannot pay have to be pursued. Bearing in mind the events of the past 10 days, I do not know how any reasonable local authority could issue summonses against such people for the purpose of enforcing poll tax charges of 20 per cent.
The Government have said that the poll tax is going. Or have they? They are rushing this Bill through Parliament. The Prime Minister has spoken. We have heard all the arguments about the cost of collection. We know that hardly anybody in Wandsworth or Westminster will contribute directly to local government finance. How can any responsible local authority of any political persuasion carry on issuing summonses for those paying 20 per cent.?

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I am not giving way to a member of the Scottish National party.
I do not see how that policy can be pursued. That is a real dilemma for responsible local authorities. They know full well that the Government are not prepared to bend. I know that the Government will not accept the amendments, but I believe that they will be forced by circumstances to move on this issue and perhaps on a couple mentioned by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). That is inevitable. They are on the slippery slope. This is more than the thin end of the wedge. The rush is on, and I am convinced that the Government will have to move.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not giving way to a member of the SNP. Okay? Right. I say that after my visit to Scotland last Friday. My views were reinforced after discussions with many of my political friends in the nation.
We could have avoided being in this situation. During the passage of the original legislation, the Government could answer hardly any questions about losers and gainers. They could answer hardly any questions about those on rebates. When we asked in November 1989 what information the Government had as they set out on pushing their flagship through Parliament, they said that


no estimate has been made of the likely numbers on rebate in each local authority. On 13 January 1988. the Government said that no information was available on the proportion of households with below-average income and in receipt of rate rebates. On 15 December 1987, the Government were unable to give information on 18 to 25-year-olds gaining and losing. Those are just three examples from a list of about 30 points that I made at the time on which the Government had no information. They could not answer detailed questions as they launched their flagship.
The Government are in the same position now. They cannot tell the House how many people will receive £140 off their poll tax or less than £140 off their poll tax. The other week, the Government boasted that more than half the poll tax payers in England—18 million-plus—would benefit either from the rebate or from the reduction scheme. They boasted that half would pay less than the full amount, but they cannot quite bring themselves to admit now that, by definition, if more than 50 per cent. gained under the old scheme, more than 50 per cent. of adults in England will not receive £140 off their bills. The one follows the other. What the Government cannot give us tonight, and what they should give us tonight, is a breakdown of those who will not get the full £140 including those paying 20 per cent. whom we are trying to exempt with our amendments.
I was reminding myself of what was said during the passage of the legislation, and I came across a few gems that I want to share with the House. We are talking about something that affects millions of our fellow citizens—your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and mine. Just listen to this:
Every time I hear people squeal I am more than ever certain that we are right".
That was the former Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—who has not had the courage to appear in the Chamber once today.
We put the same point to the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly. In Committee, he said—I am not quoting him out of context; the details will be in the record—
With a flat rate charge, it must be true that the burden will fall more heavily on those with low incomes than on those with high incomes." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E;23 February 1988, c. 936.]
We know that; we kept telling him that. That is why the poll tax flat rate is unfair, and why taking £140 off the top figure, rather than the bottom figure, is still unfair to the low paid.
12.15 am
I should like to share with the House another quotation from the record of that debate. I have given the hon. Member concerned notice. During that debate, my hon. Friends and I tried to secure a 100 per cent. rebate to protect the poorest in the land. We do not accept the "holy grail" dictum that everyone should make a contribution—people are contributing through the general tax system every time they buy a VAT-rated good.
The hon. Gentleman to whom I refer said in Committee:
Above all, I am worried because in recent years we have seen the development of two societies. I wholeheartedly support the Government for having helped to achieve growing prosperity for the majority of our citizens. However, we have also created an under class of hapless people who are in enormous personal difficulties.

That was before the poll tax was introduced. The hon. Gentleman continued:
I am sure that hon. Members share my constituency experiences, except if they happen to represent such areas as Sunningdale…I represent a prosperous area, too.
In his authority, he said:
we shall, on balance, benefit by the introduction of the measure. However, constituents no longer approach us, as Members of Parliament, with the same financial and social problems that, a few years ago, we could have solved with relative ease. We could break through local authority bureaucracy and contact our ministerial colleagues to obtain help with their problems. They were manageable and solvable. Sadly, that no longer applies.
I am not over-dramatising the position, but I have noticed the haunted look in the eyes of people who shuffle into my surgery.
I shall repeat that, for the benefit of any hon. Member who has not witnessed the same thing since the introduction of the poll tax in England:
I am not over-dramatising the position, but I have noticed the haunted look in the eyes of people who shuffle into my surgery. They have been caught in the poverty trap which has come about by a combination of our benefits and tax system and low income. The proposals are an understandable reaction by the Government faced with such an awkward situation. I am sure that they wanted to impose the poll tax on everyone. But we must have a benefit system, otherwise there would be an outcry because of the additional burden on the poorest members of our society who are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
We have a get-rich-quick, materialistic environment. It scorns people who cannot keep up with it. That is also distressing for parliamentarians. People need our help; they must not be kicked in the teeth by a system that 	is becoming increasingly hard on them. They might be regarded by hard newspapers, such as the Daily Expressand The Sunas the unsuccessful minority about whom we should not worry too much. Those newspapers probably advocate a small support system at the margin that will just keep such people going. That is the most severe charge facing all	 parliamentarians when we consider even the small details of the proposals." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E;23 February 1988, c. 884.]
I am quoting the hon. Member for Harrow, East (M r. Dykes), the Tory Member who has usually backed us all the way on the poll tax. That could have been said by any Opposition Member, but I venture to say that not many Tory Members could have said it.
I should like to think that, in the past two years—and certainly in the past year—Conservative Members had learnt some of the lessons. People may have shuffled into their surgeries, if they have them and if they are available, unlike the situation in some constituencies where people have to wait nine months for an appointment and where they only get to see their Member of Parliament when they have written a letter to the local newspaper. It happened in a midlands constituency, which I shall not name— —

Mr. Tony Banks: Name him.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member concerned is not here, so it would not be fair. I would name him otherwise.
The position has got worse because of the imposition of the 20 per cent., which also gives the Government a convenient loophole when they talk about losers and gainers. By introducing the 20 per cent. the year before the poll tax came into operation in England, they try to compare like with unlike. They should compare the present position with what was happening before, when the poorest paid taxes through VAT and other excise duties but were exempt from the local tax, as they were exempt from income tax, on the ground of low income.


That is only fair in our society. Given that the system does not make sense from a practical or from a financial point of view, and given that it does not make sense from a moral point of view when the Bill will give £280——

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I have nearly finished.
We shall give £280 to a person who owns a second home and who, by definition, would not be getting a rebate under the Bill, and we shall give him £140 off the poll tax for his first home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said earlier. The person who will not have a penny piece rebate will receive a £420 handout, but only £28 will go to the person with only income support. We know that such a person will pay more than that once he has spent more than a half dozen weeks' benefit money. After £1,100 of expenditure liable to VAT, his gain will have gone, whereas everyone else will have to spend £13,000 before the benefits are wiped out. How can that be fair? How can it be fair for someone with a second home, who does not have a penny piece rebate because he is not entitled to it, to have £280 when there will be only £28 for the poorest?
If the Government had any sense, they would accept the amendment. If they had any sense, they would have listened to us in 1988 and not proceeded with the poll tax. We told them then from the Dispatch Box that we would bury the Government with the poll tax legislation, and bury them we will.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shared many long hours in Committee with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I am heartily glad to see the poll tax now coming to an end. I intend to be brief. We are talking on those of the lowest incomes who face bills that, although lower, are difficult for them to pay. I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few minutes ago. He spoke a lot of sense. The Government would be well advised to listen to him.
If the Government go ahead and insist, during the two-years interim period before the new scheme comes about, that everyone must continue to pay, they will put a millstone around people on low incomes who have considerable difficulty paying and around local authorities which have to collect payments at a cost that, in many cases, exceeds those payments.
In Wales, we have a level of poll tax that is, on average, lower than that in England or in Scotland. It will cost more to collect payments from people on the 20 per cent. level than they pay. That makes no sense from the point of view of the individuals who are suffering, or from the point of view of local authorities. Surely there is a need to reconsider the matter.
If the Government based their case on the need for every individual to make a payment, they have surely conceded that case with the abandonment of bills to individuals and with the introduction of only household bills from 1993. They have also abandoned the principle in cases such as Wandsworth, where many people will not receive bills. The Government have also acknowledged the difficult position of some authorities where minimal

payments may be made. As one Minister said, that would be a matter for the discretion of the authority. We need some clarification about how far that discretion goes.
If some areas end up with a residual charge of £3 or £5, do local authorities have the right to waive that bill? Are they expected to pursue those bills although it may cost £50 or £100 to collect them? The Government must tackle that problem. If they had any sense, they would accept the amendments on that issue, or they could table an amendment even at this late stage.
The Government should find a way in which to ensure that those on a low income, the unemployed, the disabled and pensioners—those who receive 80 per cent. benefit on the poll tax—are exempt from the new charges. That would remove the pain suffered by those many people who have had to go to court because they have not paid their local authorities.
A few weeks ago, I was in court in Caernarfon. A thousand non-payment cases came before it that day. A large proportion of those cases involved people who receive 80 per cent. benefit but who still do not have the resources to pay the 20 per cent. It is not in the interests of central and local government, or good government, to pursue cases in such a manner.
It is not too late for the Government to acknowledge the argument that has been advanced by all parties in the House. Even now they could find a way in which to free those on a low income and in receipt of support from the iniquitous poll tax. That would mean that local authorities would have a much easier job in the next two years until we bury the poll tax once and for all.

Mr. Robert Adley: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) —the sooner we bury the poll tax the better. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will know that I have opposed it throughout.
I shall weary the House for just two minutes as I illustrate the nonsensical unfairness of the system by quoting my family circumstances. First, my wife and I are classed as two payers. She has never paid the rates and she does not pay the poll tax—that exposes the fiction that more people paid the poll tax. We know that that was nonsense.
In Westminster, my rates were £1,200. Last year, because it is a second home, they came down to £380—now they are down to £72, but I do not claim to be one of the poorest in the country. Last year we were in receipt of transitional relief on our home in Dorset and, this year, my wife and I will be receiving £220 of Government grant. I know perfectly well that I am receiving that money while many on a quarter of my income are not getting any relief.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the hotel in Cornwall where my wife and I intend to spend the summer holiday. The management told me, quite fairly, that, as a result of the increase in VAT, the price of our holiday will be increased by 2·5 per cent. I accept that, as it is an expensive hotel. I shall enjoy staying there, and I shall happily pay that extra VAT in the knowledge that I do not have to spend that money, but that I want to, because I can afford to stay in a decent hotel. I shall be paying that contribution in accordance with my ability to pay.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to stop the nonsense. Let us get out of this unfair and unworkable tax at the earliest opportunity. I am not the only one to argue that we should use as much of central Government


taxation as possible to pay for local services. I do not recall Lieutenant General de la Billière saying that he felt guilty about using his tanks in the Gulf because he had not raised the money for them. I have never appreciated the logic of certain local councillors who have said that, unless they raised the money, they did not feel justified in spending it. The best way in which to assess the value of a local councillor is not how he raises the money, but how he spends it. The less money we spend on raising local taxes the more we shall have to spend on services.
We all know that the poll tax is to be buried. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to stop pretending to everyone—let us get rid of it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I am sure that we all listened with respect to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who has just spoken, and to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who have both always been honourable and consistent in their opposition to the poll tax.
Perhaps it is appropriate that I should say that I come to praise at least one aspect of the poll tax from the Opposition Benches. The one credit that I can give the poll tax is that it finally blew the cover on the elaborate deception of the 1980s to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) alluded—that local government expenditure was rising at an unacceptable pace. The truth of the matter is that, throughout the 1980s, the central Government contribution was being steadily reduced and the levy that had to be made upon ratepayers to bridge the gap was rising. That was commonplace.
Then came the poll tax. My first introduction to it was in 1986, when I was a local government chairman of finance and I went to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy conference in Scarborough—a serious conference, attended by all the weighty professional bodies and institutions concerned with local government finance. The community charge proposals were unveiled there. I remember being astounded at the weight of opposition to the proposals.
The Government were advised then that the administration of the tax would be horrendously complex and expensive; that implementation would be fraught with anomalies and unfairness; that people would delay payment; and that it would be difficult to police. However, for them to take notice of that weight of distinguished advice would have smacked of consultation—a word which had no place in the Tory lexicon in those days of certainty and decisiveness. And so the poll tax came to pass—or perhaps I should say that it was passed.
Knowsley's standard spending assessment for 1990–91 was £278, and we levied a poll tax of £365, which is a difference of £87. Why? Because no allowance had been made for expected increases in bad debts, which accounted of £15 a head, or for extra costs of collection, which came to £15 per head; there was an unrealistic inflation allowance of 4·6 per cent., when inflation was 7·7 per cent., which accounted for £30 per head; and finally, and worst of all, Knowsley, the poorest local authority in the land, contributed £16 per head to the safety net, to bail out the likes of Wandsworth. That amounts to £76 out of the £87, leaving £11, which is easily and fairly accounted for by the inadequacy of the funding formula, which recognized

factors that favoured Wandsworth and Westminster, but gave insufficient recognition to Knowsley's manifest social needs.
If Knowsley had received Wandsworth's level of grant allocation in that year, the poll tax would have been reduced by £15, and if it had been given Westminster's, the tax would have been a mere £56·47. That is merely taking into consideration the rate support grant and non-domestic rating contributions, and not all the other fiddles or grants which were given to Wandsworth and Westminster. Knowsley's poll tax could have been in—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to come to the amendments that are before the Committee.

Mr. O'Hara: Indeed I am. Knowsley's poll tax in 1991–92 was £424·60—£54 more, of which £42 was made up of losses on collection, interest charges and deficits on the collection fund. It could have been a negative figure if Knowsley had been given the same level of grant as Westminster. That is the fulfilment of predictions in 1986 about complexity, expense, anomaly, unfairness, evasions and accumulation of bad debts, and that is only the financial story.
Now, Mr. Walker, I come to the amendments. There have been cuts in education, affecting hundreds of teachers, and the youth service has been wiped out. Social and leisure services have been affected, as have the voluntary bodies, including the citizens advice bureaux and the money advice centres, which have been losing their funding. Yet we know that 81 per cent. of the clients coming to the money advice centres in Knowsley are those affected by the 20 per cent. rule. They are coming to those money advice centres in desperation for advice on how to find that 20 per cent.
As I have said, the one saving grace of all this is that these crazy sums have blown the Government's cover, exploded the myth of council extravagence and laid the blame at the Government's door as scheme after elastoplast scheme has been devised to cover the gaping wounds. Hence the community charge reduction scheme, with the Government scaling new heights of gerrymandering. The fourth such scheme was introduced nine short weeks ago, and we now have this Bill of amendment. To stay in order, Mr. Walker, and to refer to the amendments, I must add that perhaps this amendment is the Government's last chance to inject just a grain of fairness into the Bill by taking account of those who will pay 20 per cent. and allocating a moderate sum from the £4·5 billion to alleviate that distress.
I conclude with my personal epitaph on this sorry story. We have had plenty of imagery—of the 'three-card trick' management of the community charge, and or circus sideshow trickery'. Hon. Members will have heard of Nero, the Roman emperor who fiddled while Rome burned. In 68 AD, he was assassinated. Interestingly, there was then a civil war and a series of four emperors in that year. I wonder whether that is an omen. One of those emperors, Vitellius, was immortalised by the historian Tacitus in "Capax imperii nisi imperasset", which means, "Capable of being emperor, if only he had not become emperor," or, more felicitiously translated, "An emperor with a glorious future behind him." Perhaps the poll tax will show that we have a Prime Minister with a glorious


future behind him.

Mr. Tony Banks: I rise to speak in favour of the amendments, but I shall be brief, having sat through all our proceedings. I send that message to my Chief Whip with great love and affection. In view of the quotation just given by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), I shall try to be as taciturn as I can.
The amendment seeks to remove what is clearly the most unpopular aspect of the poll tax. The tax has many injustices, but requiring people on the lowest level of income in our society—those on income support—to make a payment is so cruel that hon. Members of all parties have now recognised that.
I pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for having been so frank in telling the House his personal circumstances. I hope that Conservative Members will investigate and examine their consciences in the same way as the hon. Member for Christchurch has. When they do, I think that they will come to the same conclusion—that the amendment must be carried and that the idea of the poorest paying 20 per cent. has to go.
We understand the reasons for the rule—at least, we understand the words that were used to explain it—that everyone who benefits from local authority services should make some contribution. But it is perhaps surprising that that principle is not applied to the payment of income tax and to voting at the national level. After all, many people do not pay income tax—such as those who are unemployed and those who are on income support—but I have not heard any Conservative Member suggest that, because those people are not contributing to the services provided nationally by central Government, their general election vote should be taken from them. If the Government want to be consistent, they must take the vote away from people who do not pay income tax or allow people who cannot afford to contribute to continue to
We know many people who cannot afford to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) gave details from a speech made by the now somnolent figure of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It was a very good speech, but obviously not one that he can recall at the moment. No doubt he is seeking inspiration. I see that he has once again joined the land of the conscious. He made a very good speech in Committee. He made it clear that it was upsetting for hon. Members as well as for their constituents when people found themselves in a position where they could not pay.
I am not so concerned about people who made a political gesture. Although that is an honourable attitude to adopt, those who do so must take the political consequences. There is a role in politics for those who consider a tax to be immoral and an imposition and who refuse to pay it. I was more concerned about those who could not afford to pay and those who broke down in tears in my advice surgery. They are the people we have to look after. They are the people who are still caught up by the poll tax.
Great play has been made of the fact that there is to be a reduction of £140. As we know, for those on income support the reduction will be only £28. They will get just 20 per cent. of the £140, but they will be paying 100 per cent. of the 2·5 per cent. increase on VAT—no one has suggested that they should pay only 20 per cent. of that—so the poorest members of society are still being asked to pay the poll tax disproportionately. Figures have

been given in the debate to show that it is the poorest 10 per cent. who pay proportionately far more of their income on VAT-charged goods and services than the richest 10 per cent. That is grossly unfair.
If hon. Members will be as decent as the hon. Member for Christchurch and examine their consciences, they will realise that they are voting to benefit themselves to the disadvantage of the poorest people in this country, and will do as the hon. Member for Christchurch will no doubt be doing and join us in the Lobby in support of the amendment.

Mr. Salmond: I intend to be very brief. To avoid any doubt, I will not give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). However, I should like to support two of his arguments. The first has been expressed by many hon. Members in the debate: it is now long past time to get the poll tax off the backs of the poor. The £140 should not be a top-line reduction but a bottom-line reduction, taking not just the 20 per cent. but many of the low-paid out of the poll tax net.
The Government have a stark choice: they can make that concession now with as much good grace as they can muster, or they can have it forced on them in coming weeks and months. That concession is coming, not because of any generosity of spirit in the Tory party but purely because the tax is uncollectable, to use the Prime Minister's word, from the poorest people.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr advanced a second argument. I am sorry to say that he did not have the courtesy to say that he was reflecting that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) a few seconds earlier. He said that, in current circumstances, it would be insupportable for any local authority to pursue by civil diligence those who cannot afford to pay the poll tax. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr could communicate to his Scottish Front Bench colleagues, the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the need to take the poll tax off the backs of the Scottish poor, I might not express some of my criticisms of the Labour party.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I thought that I had heard some two thirds of the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) before—indeed, on several occasions. He was kind enough to pay a compliment to the good people of Eastwood. The good people of Eastwood look forward to hearing and analysing the Labour party's proposals for replacing the Government's proposed system. I assure him that the good people of Eastwood will be fully informed of the Labour party's proposals.

Mr. Maxton: I wonder whether the good people of Eastwood are equally attracted to the idea of single-tier local authorities, which will inevitably lead Eastwood to be part of Glasgow.

Mr. Stewart: I know that that is the policy of the hon. Member for Cathcart. He has confirmed it on many occasions. There are many possible formulae for single-tier authorities. I suggest—[Interruption.] I see that Opposition Members are becoming a little restive about my being tempted down that path by the hon. Gentleman.
We have had two debates this evening. First, there was the well-considered debate, with speeches from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—I certainly would not challenge his credentials in this matter—and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I am sure that my hon. Friends will consider carefully the points that my hon. Friend made about the future. We had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and the House appreciated the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) improving the class of the debate considerably at one point.
Then there was the sub-plot to the debate. At some points, I felt that I did not wish to intrude on the private grief of Opposition Members. I wondered whether we would ever get a word in edgeways. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), leading off for the Scottish National party, asked 26 questions by my count, 25 of which were directed at the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Cathcart. It is rumoured in the press that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West intends to challenge one of those hon. Gentlemen at the next general election. I am sure that that will be—I was about to say a battle of the titans, but I am not sure that that is an appropriate phrase. Certainly it will be a battle worth watching.

Mr. Douglas: I may stand against the Minister.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to stand against me if he wishes to do so.
The amendments fall into two sub-groups—if that is the correct word. First, there are the amendments which seek to give those who already benefit from the community charge reduction scheme the full charge reduction under the Bill. The House will agree that the scheme has been generously improved, especially as result of the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. Secondly, amendments have been tabled by hon. Members representing the Official Opposition, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that have the broad effect of eliminating charge payments for those who would otherwise pay 20 per cent.
The purpose of the Bill is to achieve a general reduction of £140 in the headline personal community charge figure. As a result of the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when replying to the Second Reading debate, the House did not seek to challenge that principle. The importance of that principle must be emphasised against the background of what has happened.
The hon. Member for Garscadden defended the expenditure patterns of Scottish councils, but they have increased the charge by 30 per cent. this year. 'Their expenditure remains about 30 per cent. per adult higher than expenditure in England or Wales. The regional councils have loaded two years of non-payment on to one year and rebuilt balances after election year.
As hon. Members have said, by no means everybody pays the headline charge, because they benefit from the community charge reduction scheme or because students benefit from the reduced charge. Others have the advantage of the community charge benefit. Those who benefit from charge assistance would, if the Opposition

formula was adopted, benefit twice. The principle of the Bill is that people should benefit from the reduction in proportion of the amount of headline charge that they pay.

Mr. Kirkwood: It would help the Committee if the Minister would say about how much money we are arguing. How much would it cost to abolish the rebate system ceiling?

Mr. Stewart: I do not have a specific figure to hand.

Mr. Douglas: rose——

Mr. Stewart: The House is anxious to proceed, but I will give way a final time.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister challenge COSLA's figure of £30 million? Will he, when he meets COSLA on 8 April, clarify that and let us know? The £30 million figure appears to be given with some authority and substance.

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will analyse the COSLA figure.
There is a well defined principle here—that, with well defined exemptions, all adults should make a direct contribution to the services that they use. That principle of accountability is important and has had an effect in Scotland, as could be seen by the behaviour of Scottish regional councils last year, election year. In 1990–91, broadly speaking, they increased the community charge by about the level of inflation. It is interesting to note that this year, without elections, they have sharply increased the figures.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose——

Mr. Stewart: I have given way twice, and I now wish to proceed.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was concerned with the issue of waiving. The general principle is that an authority is not obliged to pursue collection if the action would not be cost effective—that is, if it would not be in the overall financial interest of its charge payers. It is for the individual authority to decide in each case whether the principle is satisfied. I think that an authority is likely to set its general approach in the light of the views of its auditor.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) alleged that the community charge was uncollectable. That is simply not the case in Scotland. Of course there are those who have not paid, but the idea that in Scotland there is an enormous dedicated army of people who have not paid is not true. There are variations in Scotland. In the hon. Gentleman's regional council, Fife has an excellent record of collection. It is a primarily industrial area with a Labour regional council and it is estimated that its collection rate in 1991–92, in general terms, will be the same as, or higher than, in the current year.
I emphasise to the Committee the importance of the rebate scheme, under which more than 1 million people in Scotland benefit. Opposition Members have suggested that many people have serious debt problems. The House is entitled to ask, "Whose fault is that?" It is not the fault of Opposition spokesmen, but it is in large measure the fault of the Scottish National party Members and some Labour Members because there has undoubtedly been a cynical exercise in misleading people about non-payment, which has had two effects. First, it has resulted in a tide of


outrage among decent people who have paid at having to pay a surcharge to subsidise those who have not, but could afford to do so. That tide of outrage sweeps across people of all political persuasions. Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, the campaign may have misled people and encouraged them to get into serious debt.
That serious responsibility lies on the shoulders of those Scottish National party Members who have advocated non-payment, many of whom continue to do so. I shall not intrude on the private grief of the SNP over non-payment after the conference at the weekend where, I understand, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was described as avoiding calamity by 27 votes.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, I shall not. We shall wait to see whether calamity arrives.
The Bill is about the present system, and 1991–92. I ask the House to reject the amendments and send, not the Opposition's message to the people, but a different message—that the Bill is generous—[Interruption.] Of course it is—that is why Opposition Members did not vote against it on Second Reading.
The Bill reduces the costs for everyone. The average charge in England will be £250–20 per cent. of that is less than £1 a week.
People in Scotland have been misled by the non-payment campaign. For 1991–92, the Bill gives substantial help to everyone in paying their personal community charge. Therefore, let everyone make his or her contribution.

Mr. Maxton: What we have just heard is the rearguard action of the Scottish Office fighting to retain whatever last elements of the poll tax it can salvage from the wreckage around it. It has been fighting that campaign in the review during the past few months. We only have to listen to the leaks coming from the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I gather that there is an investigation into who is doing the leaking. Those involved have only to stand in front of a mirror to see who has been doing the leaking during the past few weeks. We have seen the last remnants of that fight in the Minister's speech.
The Government have no give, no take, no generosity and no ability to see that the poor are being hit. That is what is so desperately wrong with the Government—they cannot, with any dignity, admit their previous mistakes and say, "We were wrong, we are sorry and we will now put it right." This is the chance for those Conservative Members who have a sense of responsibility to the poorest in our society—two of whom have courageously continued to speak their minds against the poll tax tonight—to join us in the Lobby to vote for the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 284.

Division No. 105]
[1 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Armstrong, Hilary
Battle, John


Ashton, Joe
Beckett, Margaret


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Beith, A. J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bell, Stuart





Bellotti, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Benton, Joseph
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles


Blair, Tony
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Blunkett, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Boyes, Roland
Lambie, David


Bradley, Keith
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lewis, Terry


Caborn, Richard
Livingstone, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
McAllion, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAvoy, Thomas


Carr, Michael
McCrea, Rev William


Cartwright, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McFall, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKelvey, William


Clay, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McMaster, Gordon


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cummings, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Meacher, Michael


Darling, Alistair
Meale, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l amp; Bute)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Doran, Frank
Morley, Elliot


Douglas, Dick
Mullin, Chris


Duffy, A. E. P.
Murphy, Paul


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Nellist, Dave


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alexander
O'Hara, Edward


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Pike, Peter L.


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Fearn, Ronald
Primarolo, Dawn


Fisher, Mark
Quin, Ms Joyce


Flynn, Paul
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, John
Rooker, Jeff


Fyfe, Maria
Rooney, Terence


Galbraith, Sam
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Galloway, George
Rowlands, Ted


George, Bruce
Ruddock, Joan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Salmond, Alex


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Graham, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Short, Clare


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sillars, Jim


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Snape, Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Soley, Clive


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Home Robertson, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hood, Jimmy
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Vaz, Keith


Illsley, Eric
Walley, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Wareing, Robert N.






Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Worthington, Tony


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wray, Jimmy


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Winnick, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allason, Rupert
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Amos, Alan
Emery, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, W.
French, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, Sir George


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boswell, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Curry, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Irvine, Michael





Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stokes, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Trippier, David


Mills, lain
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moore, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wiggin, Jerry


Norris, Steve
Wilkinson, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilshire, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Portillo, Michael



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Price, Sir David
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr.Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 5, leave out from 'amount' to end of line 15 and insert


'payable in respect of the year 1991–92 by a person to whom regulations made in accordance with subsection (2A) below apply shall from the relevant day be reduced by such amount as may be determined under those regulations.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (6) below may make such provision for the application of additional rebates as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate in respect of persons not entitled before the passing of this Act to a rebate of 80 per cent. of a personal community charge.'.
No. 27, in page 3, line 14, leave out from first 'amount' to end of line 19 and insert
'payable in respect of the year 1991–92 by a person to whom regulations made in accordance with subsection (2A) below apply shall from the relevant day be reduced by such an amount as may be determined under those regulations.'.
No. 34, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations made under subsection (6) below may make provision for the application of additional rebates as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate in respect of persons not entitled before the passing of this Act to a rebate of 80 per cent. of a personal community charge.'.

Mr. Murphy: I begin by referring to this afternoon's speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he said that the Bill would provide "direct help" for community charge payers in England and Wales. However, the reduction of £140 is not linked to ability to pay the headline tax. The term "headline tax" is a perpetuation of the local government financial gobbledegook that has developed during the last 10 to 15 years. It does not help us to understand these matters. The fact is that everybody will enjoy this £140 reduction, irrespective of income. It perpetuates the inequality of the poll tax.
Reference was made in the last debate to the £300 million that would have exempted the poorest people from paying the poll tax. However, the Committee decided not to accept the amendment. This series of amendments relates to the introduction of new rebates. About £600 million would reduce the taper on benefit from 15 per cent. to 7·5 per cent. For every £1 that a claimant's income rises above that threshold, 15p of poll tax benefit is lost. If that were to be reduced to 7·5p, a considerable impact on the so-called poverty trap could be made.
During consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill in Standing Committee in 1988, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will recall, as he too was a member of the Committee, the many references that were made to the fact that the poverty trap creates considerable problems with regard to rebate. Furthermore, the rebate system does not address the problem of the poverty trap—those who do not earn enough to claim benefit and those who earn just too much to be able to claim it. Those people are caught in the middle. If some of the value added tax money could be directed towards increasing the new rebates and alleviating such problems, many thousands of people in Wales and tens of thousands of people in the United Kingdom would be better off.
The last debate referred to Scottish matters. Therefore, I intend to deal with the rebate system as it applies in the Principality. Incomes in Wales are much lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are at the bottom of the British earnings league. In Wales, 40 per cent. of the

people earn less than the European so-called decency threshold. In the Principality, 35,000 men and 70,000 women earn less than £130 a week.
We all know that the additional 2·5 per cent. value added tax will hit hardest those people who are on low incomes. In the Cynon Valley, Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent there are some of the poorest people in the United Kingdom. They will be affected very severely indeed by this extra burden. The editorial in the Western Mail of the day after Budget day said that, in Wales, the £140 would soon disappear because of extra VAT.
1.15 am
The people of Wales can see through the trick of switching from one form of tax to another. Those who wish to improve their properties will not be helped. The Rhymney Valley district council informed us recently that many people currently in receipt of rebates will not benefit from the cut of £ 140 in the so-called headline tax, as a large number of them undoubtedly expect to do. For instance, a single old-age pensioner will receive only about £27. In New Tredegar, a single person on income support will get just over £7. Literally thousands of people in Wales who are in receipt of benefits will get nothing like the £140 that has been trumpeted from the rooftops during the past few days.
There is another strange consequence. People in Wales who are currently eligible for grants to carry out minor repairs and improvements to their properties will no longer be eligible. That will hit a tremendous number of people in the valleys—people who have already been hit by changes in the way in which grants are means-tested. Those two disadvantages are being combined, even if unwittingly. In many parts of Wales, there will be considerable disharmony as a direct consequence of this change.
These are just two examples of the anomalies and injustices that will result from this measure.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that a third example of the rediculousness of this proposal is that the Secretary of State for Wales will pay no poll tax in respect of his flat in the Crown buildings in Cathays park, in Cardiff? Why, when so many people will not get the benefit that they expect from this measure that is being trumpeted tonight, should the Secretary of State not have to pay poll tax?

Mr. Murphy: I could give examples of that kind of thing in many parts of the Principality. Blanket relief of £140 is daft. People up and down the Principality who earn many tens of thousands of pounds will get the same relief as people on average incomes. My hon. Friend's point is very valid.
The introduction of the community charge reduction scheme—the so-called transitional relief—has produced anomalies throughout Wales. The system in the Principality is different from that in England. In certain communities, people are divided, and considerable bitterness has been created. Some people on very low incomes get no benefit at all by way of transitional relief. That problem will be exacerbated by the fact that the rebate of £140 will apply throughout the Principality. Our experience in Neath and elsewhere during the past two weeks shows that this panic measure has not been well received in Wales.
This is an ill-thought-out, badly drafted Bill, which certainly does not address the main issues. There should have been proper consultation with Welsh local authorities before the details of the scheme were finalised.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has made some important points which apply to many parts of Wales. The Bill will result in many anomalies. However, I disagree with him when he says that the Bill is not going down well in Wales. We would be misleading ourselves if we believed that the £140 reduction in bills was not going down well. People always welcome a reduction in hills of that sort.
We would not deny the average figure of £95 in Wales, but we would like to see the money raised in an equitable way, and we advocate a local income tax. I realise that there are different views on this within parties as well as across parties, but a local income tax would overcome the anomalies of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, which certainly need to be overcome in some way.
In some areas the rebates are significant while next door they are next to nothing. People in the same circumstances in adjacent communities such as Felinheli and Llanddeiniolen in my constituency have a difference cif £50 to £60 in their community charge. That is not a sensible way to work things out in the long term. One needs to find a formula which takes into account people's abilities to pay.
Our previous debate dealt with the 20 per cent. threshold. A large number of people could have been exempted if we had done away with that threshold, but even so, there would still have been the question of gradation. The Government have a formula which gives rough justice. They need to work on that or the anomalies will cause bureaucratic and administrative difficulties as well as penalising the families concerned and creating much work and heartache in the next year or two through to 1993.
For that reason, the Bill should be amended. The wording of the amendments appeals to me because it allows the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to cope with some of the problems as they arise. It is well worth building in such amendments to give the Secretary of State the sort of powers that he may well find himself needing to overcome the anomalies in the rough justice Bill being rushed through Parliament tonight.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I rise to draw to the attention of the House the nonsenses that will occur as a consequence of the Bill. They stem from the fundamental principle of the poll tax—the notion that a citizen is accountable only if he pays some sort of tax. For generations, in Budget after Budget, Chancellors have tried to take people out of taxation by raising personal allowances, age reliefs, and so on. That has not made them any less responsible or less accountable or made the system less democratic. It has been a sensible administrative arrangement not to drag people into marginal forms of taxation.
Yet the poll tax did just that—it dragged a host of people into paying the most marginal sums of money possible. Now, having introduced the £140 reduction, we shall have an absurd situation in which some people will end up paying as little as £10 or £12 per year. The notion that someone who is paying such a sum is still accountable—still part of a democracy, and a responsible citizen who

will worry about how he votes because he is paying £12 a year—makes nonsense of the idea of any relationship between paying tax and being a responsible citizen. Hundreds of thousands of people do not pay national taxation; they have been taken out of the system, justifiably, because of their low incomes. Those people are no less accountable, no less responsible and no less democratic than anyone else.
In my constituency, borough treasurers—or directors of finance, as they are now called—will have to issue new bills for what could well be £12; the cost of billing people in the area could well be £13 per person. What is the point? Will that somehow reinforce the concept of accountability and democracy? The nonsense of the poll tax has already been laid bare by the Government's pathetic attempts to correct the anomalies, and to remove the anger and resentment that they have caused. If we achieve nothing else by constantly voting against the Government's proposals, we shall continue to reveal the stark absurdity of the idea that people must still pay a marginal tax—20 per cent. of the total—to be responsible citizens.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I fully endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), but I should like to add something about owners of second homes. They will receive double relief, in the form of £140 on each home. In Wales, tens of thousands of second-home owners will benefit in that way. Single poll tax payers who have been involved in a multiplier of two will often benefit more than some of the poorest people in Wales, and I do not think that that is fair. Does the Minister think that it is? I want a straightforward answer. In my view, it discriminates in favour of some of the wealthiest people in our society.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Anyone listening to what Opposition Members have said would imagine that community charge bills in Wales are the highest in the United Kingdom rather than the lowest. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) did not congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on securing for Wales the most generous settlement that any Secretary of State for Wales has ever achieved. Although, from the start, Welsh community charge bills were £100 or more lower than those in England, my right hon. Friend managed to achieve the full £140 reduction.
The hon. Member for Torfaen is usually very generous. He might have acknowledged that achievement, which means that the £260 headline figure that would have been Wales's community charge in the coming year will he reduced to £120 after the £140 reduction. The reduction will bring down the average bill in Wales to £95. Surely no one could consider that a matter for criticism; surely it is a matter for praise. The hon. Member for Torfaen is criticising my right hon. Friend unfairly.

Mr. Murphy: rose——

Mr. Bennett: No, I will not give way. I want to continue on this subject for a minute.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke of bills of £12 or £13. Strangely, he seemed to be suggesting that we should not have reduced the bills by so much. We should note that. The fact that we have reduced the charge to such an extent means that some authorities will have such small sums to collect that it


would be uneconomic to send out bills. We have made it clear tonight, as we did yesterday, that, if it is uneconomic to collect the charge because of the cost of billing, it is up to the local authority to talk to the district auditor to see whether it needs to collect the money. I hope that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfill and Rhymney.

Mr. Rowlands: If the citizen does not receive a bill, does that make him less accountable or less democratic?

Mr. Bennett: I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point about accountable citizens. I thought that the whole purpose of the community charge and of the principle that most people should make a contribution was to make the authorities accountable. We are not talking about the citizens. We are talking about making the authorities accountable. The principle that most people should make a contribution towards the services about which they have a vote and which they receive was generally acceptable. The problem with the community charge has been the outrageous charges made by some authorities, especially those in inner London such as Lambeth, which would have sent out a bill for £595 for the coming year if it had not been reduced.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he has employed it himself, that the argument is that, if all the people in a local authority area pay something, they are far more aware of the level of services that are provided and their cost. The Minister hoped that, if people made a contribution, they would influence elections to local authorities. That was, as the Minister has said, a way in which to make people more responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was correct to say that that was one of the original intentions of the poll tax.

Mr. Bennett: The community charge was a way to ensure that local authorities were more responsive to the wishes of the citizens. We have clear evidence from the results in Wandsworth and Westminster in May 1990 that that happened.
It is also important to note the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). He complained that those who pay two standard community charges would get the reduction. They will get a £280 reduction. He would be the first to write to complain to the Welsh Office if his constituents who are forced to pay two standard community charges did not get that reduction. It is a typical Liberal Democrat ploy to try to have it both ways. It seems fair that people who pay two standard community charges, on top of their personal charge elsewhere, are as entitled to the reduction of £140 as anybody else in society.
The hon. Member for Torfaen talked about the benefits scheme. The benefits scheme in Wales is exactly the same as that operating elsewhere in Great Britain. In so far as earnings in Wales are lower than in other parts of England, that is not the point of the benefit scheme. What is relevant is that Welsh charge payers will be treated in exactly the same way as those in England who face similar charges

and who are on similar incomes. There is no Welsh dimension in the matter. The system is exactly the same for people in Wales as it is for those in England.
Mention was also made of the separate scheme that applies in Wales with regard to the community charge reduction scheme. It may benefit hon. Members if I explain the basis for the scheme in the coming year. The average 1989–90 rate bill in a community area has been compared with the actual 1990–91 charge. If the 1989–90 bill is exceeded by £37 in 1990–91, relief is given through the community charge reduction scheme to everybody who lives in that community council area. That is unaffected by the 1991–92 reduction.
The amendments are therefore not acceptable to us. They are designed to remove from the Bill the general reduction in headline community charges and to substitute for it a requirement that the Secretary of State should make regulations, in effect applying the resources saved to improving the community charge benefit scheme for those charge payers with incomes above income support level.

Mr. Wigley: I wanted some clarification in case, at this early hour of the morning, I had misunderstood what the Minister was saying. Is he saying that, where there is a community charge reduction, as is applicable in Wales, of, for example, £60, people benefiting from that would benefit from the £60 and from the £140, and so might benefit by up to £200? The net figure left would then be about £50. The Minister spoke about a comparison between the poll tax for the coming year and the figure for 1989. Is the Minister making that comparison before or after taking the community charge benefit into account? That makes a significant difference.

Mr. Bennett: Let me explain exactly how it is done. One starts off with a headline charge of £250, less the £140, which brings it down to £110. One then deducts the community charge reduction scheme entitlement, which might be £40, and that brings the charge down to £70. After that, the community charge benefit for the individual is considered. That is how it is done in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: There will be no change?

Mr. Bennett: In that sense, we shall continue to operate as we have in past.
Although I understand the Opposition's arguments in support of the amendments, I do not, of course, accept them. They would emasculate the Bill. Our purpose in proposing a general reduction in community charges is to give charge payers the benefit of switching a part of the burden which at present falls on them to national taxation. Those who are eligible for community charge benefit will get a proportionate reduction in the amount that they pay.
The effect of applying the resources that we propose to use to hold down charges generally to improve the benefit scheme would be to extend the taper right up the income scale. Hon. Members will be able to judge the effect if I say that the cost of the community charge benefit in the current year for the entire United Kingdom is in the region of £1 billion, which assists 10 million charge payers. If all the £4·3 billion net cost of the measures that we have announced were applied to improving the benefit scheme, many millions more would qualify for benefit and the situation would become extremely complicated and


expensive. That would leave less money available for distribution, as it would be swallowed up in extra administrative costs.
How much better, therefore, to take the course that we propose, of reducing headline charges throughout Great Britain, and improving the community charge reduction scheme in England and Scotland, so that all charge payers will pay less, including those who are eligible for community charge benefit.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Bennett: I have finished, so the hon. Gentleman can make a speech.

Mr. Griffiths: I did not intend to make a speech, but wanted to ask the Minister a question. Perhaps he will take the opportunity later to answer it.
At the beginning of his speech, the Minister emphasised that we should all be grateful that the £140 flat rate relief will be applied in Wales on top of the other benefits that already accrue, which try to minimise the damage inflicted on people by the poll tax. That generous money to be given to the people will be taken from them in the first place through the additional 2·5 per cent. on VAT.
The Minister has told us about the great things that have been achieved for the people of Wales. Can he tell us exactly how much the flat rate relief will be and how much the Treasury expects to gather from Wales as a result of the increase in VAT? It would be interesting to know the relevant figures to assess whether the people will enjoy any benefit or whether, as the Financial Times said the day after the announcement, the electorate are being bribed with their own money.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister was rather ungracious when he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) of not complimenting the Secretary of State.
One could also accuse the Minister of ungraciousness, because we are a little puzzled that low or nil community charges in Wales are not mentioned. Garw valley has set a nil community charge, but all we have heard about is Wandsworth and its prudent local authority. A low community charge in Wales is credited not to the prudence of a local authority, but to the Secretary of State. The Government should pay tribute to the good sense that Welsh local authorities have displayed over the years.
The other problem that has been skated over during the debate, and that will cause great furore when the bills finally arrive, is the foolish decision to have a different transitional system in Wales. It will then become apparent that, with the present reductions, the difference between neighbours will be greater proportionally than it was originally. For reasons best known to themselves, officials at the Welsh Office decided to give the benefit not to individuals but to areas. There is rough justice in that decision if the area is homogeneous—all a valley area, or all a rural area—but it becomes distorted in areas that are a mixture of urban and rural, as in my constituency.
What happens to the arithmetic then is that, because the old farmsteads and cottages in the country areas were de-rated and had low ratable values, when officials studied rates in farming areas, they found that they were low. As a result, in the rural wards in my constituency, which are

some of the most prosperous, virtually everyone receives a handsome rebate, but in council estates in the urban areas, which are the poorest, people receive no rebates.
I know of dramatic examples where the difference between the charges for people in streets of identical houses is £50. With the new lower rate of community charge, that difference will become even more marked.
A time bomb is ticking under the Welsh Office, and Ministers will discover the ferocity of the voters' feelings in the election. Voters will put up with a great deal—with high charges and all the nonsense and waste of Government—but they will not put up with unfairness. The system as it operates in Newport East, Newport West and many other constituencies in Wales is grossly unfair.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I shall briefly answer the extra remarks that have been made. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred to the Secretary of State and asked why there had been no praise for Welsh local authorities. The reason why local authorities have such low charges in Wales is entirely due to the fact that the percentage that is given by the Welsh Office in aggregate external finance in the coming year will be 92 per cent. of their total expenditure. If it were left to local authorities, charges would be much lower.
Wandsworth did not get the sort of aggregate external finance that is being given by the Welsh Office to local government in Wales. If one studies the figures for external financing of Wandsworth, and compares it with those for Lambeth, Hackney, Manchester and Tower Hamlets, one will find that they all received more than Wandsworth.
A remark was made about VAT and the cost to the Exchequer. However, a couple who are receiving £280 would have to spend £13,000 on VAT-rated goods in the coming year before they were out of pocket. That is the difference.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. We could go on all night.

Mr. Banks: We cannot—we can only go on until half past two.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, but there are other debates that hon. Members want to take part in.
Hon. Members also referred to the transitional relief scheme, which is now the community charge reduction scheme in Wales, and said that it was a foolish decision. I find that strange when, only last year, local authority associations were applauding the Government for having a separate system in Wales; that meant that there were no administration costs, because all the money was diverted straight to the community charge payer.
Last year, community charge payers in Wales benefited to the tune of £20 million. This year, due to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in discussions with the Treasury, that will increase to £62 million, which means that two thirds of the people of Wales will receive a community charge reduction in their benefit this year, and 612 out of 865 communities will benefit.
I accept that there is an element of rough justice in that, but we also accept that it means that all the money that was available for the reduction scheme will be sent direct to the charge payers and none will be swallowed up in administration. The fact that we gave a much larger percentage of our local government expenditure finance from the centre—92 per cent.—that the scheme was devoid


of any administration costs and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided upon a £140 reduction for Wales, as well as for England, are all measures that the people of Wales recognise. They are grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State has fought so hard for Wales and has achieved such a magnificent result.

Mr. Murphy: The Bill would not be emasculated if the Government accepted the amendments. Seeking to ensure that people are taken out of the poverty trap is by no means a bad idea.
On the issue of transitional relief, the Minister is now aware that the local authority associations in Wales have changed their minds about the value of the scheme and realise the anomalies that my hon. Friends have outlined. The most interesting part of the Minister's speech was his unlikely use of the word "congratulate", when he said that we should congratulate the Government on what has happened.
Do we congratulate the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends on introducing the tax in Wales in the first place? Do we congratulate them on squandering £10 million to set it up and an extra £10 million to administer it? Do we congratulate them on having £80 million-worth of sweetners that would have been totally unnecessary if the tax had been a decent one in the first place? Do we congratulate them on the fact that local authorities in Wales will have to raise, by way of loans, at least £100 million in the next few months to overcome their cash flow problems, and on the fact that £1 million of that will be necessary to repay the debt and to administer what has happened?
There is no case for congratulation whatsover in connection with the poll tax in Wales. Indeed, the people of Wales can see through all this, which will be one of the main reasons why the Government will be turfed out throughout the United Kingdom, and especially in the Principality, at the forthcoming general election.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 5, leave out from 'amount' to second 'for' in line 7 and insert
'payable by any person after allowance for any rebate or other reduction in respect of a personal community charge'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 26, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out from first 'amount' to 'the' in line 15 and insert
'payable by any person after allowance for any rebate or other reduction in respect of a personal community charge for'.
No. 30, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out 'authority is' and insert
'charge is in respect of'.
No. 31, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, leave out 'authority is' and insert
'charge is in respect of'.
No. 46, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out 'authority is' and insert
'charge is in respect of'.

Mr. O'Brien: It is apt that we should be discussing these amendments following the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.
If amendment No. 14 is passed, clause 1 would read
The amount payable by any person after allowance for any rebate or other reduction in respect of a personal community charge for the 1991 financial year shall, by virtue of this section, be reduced by £140 or such lesser sum as will reduce the amount to £0.
The Minister said that, because of the work of the Secretary of State for Wales, poll tax payers in the Principality are to be granted the benefit of the £140 reduction in addition to the other benefits to which people might be entitled because of their circumstances. We have been advised that they will receive the best of all worlds.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the same principle and the same rebates apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Although Ministers and Conservative Members voted to reject the amendment that was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), it is difficult to understand how they can reject this amendment because it is a levelling-up exercise. We therefore seek the support of Conservative Members if they believe in fairness and equality between poll tax payers throughout the United Kingdom. We have been told more than once that there will be some benefit for people who are paying 20 per cent. of their poll tax under the present system. If the amendment were accepted, it would ensure that people on income support, those on low income and those on low fixed pensions would benefit considerably. The amendment would ensure fairness for everyone paying poll tax.
I call on Conservative Members to have due regard for the principles embodied in amendment No. 14. In view of the points made in the debate on the previous set of amendments, it is difficult to see why the Minister could not accept the amendment and agree to fairness applying throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, I appeal to the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: As no one else wishes to speak, I may as well put in my fourpenn'orth. This set of amendments is similar to a set which we debated earlier. It highlights the position of those who will not get the £140 reduction in their poll tax but only £28 because they pay only 20 per cent. I could have voted against the whole Bill with a partially easy conscience on the grounds that about 41,000 people in my borough will not get a reduction of £140 but will get only £28 although they will have to pay the full 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT. That is grossly unfair.
I tried to get in on the chirpy little Under-Secretary of State for Wales when he said that the beneficiaries would have to spend something like £13,000 on VAT-charged goods and services before they ran out of the credit that they had received through the lower poll tax. That might apply to someone who was paying the full poll tax and getting the full rebate, but not to those getting the £28 reduction.
The point that I wanted to make to the Minister, and which I am sure he would have accepted in his usual fair, impartial and objective fashion, was that someone paying only 20 per cent. of the poll tax and getting the £28 reduction would, after spending £1,100 on VAT-charged goods and services, be losing the value of the £28 reduction. The Treasury would then be making a profit.
If we were to add all the figures, I suspect that we would find that the Treasury will make a profit out of the whole damned thing anyway. It will depend on the resurgence in retail sales and services. I should not be surprised if the


Government got back more in the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT than the £4·3 billion that they are paying out to bring the poll tax down by £140.
The 40,000 people in my constituency and many hundreds of thousands in Wales and the rest of the country who are on income support and who are paying 20 per cent. of the poll tax will find themselves out of pocket because of the Government's proposal. That is why I could fairly easily have voted against the Bill. The Secretary of State said earlier that there is no VAT on essential things like food. That is true at the moment, but pressures are building up for us to levy VAT on food. That will put the people at the lowest level of income in real trouble.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is no VAT on most basic foods, but VAT is levied on foods which especially the children of poor families buy, such as crisps, sweets and lemonade.

Mr. Banks: I accept that point. Many kids in low-income families subsist on the unhealthy diet that my hon. Friend has described. That is a double tragedy for them, but it has to be taken into account.
The figures provided by the Library show that the poorest 10 per cent. spend 9·2 per cent. of their income on VAT-charged goods and services, while the richest 10 per cent. spend only 5·7 per cent. of their income on such goods and services. Once again, this measure falls disproportionately on the poorest people. The Minister proposes a regressive tax, so we cannot be grateful to him for the formula that is being devised.
I hope that the Minister will see just how unfair the measure is. I hope that he appreciates that among all the inequalities of the poll tax, the 20 per cent. charge for the poorest people in our communities is the most invidious of all. He did not accept the earlier amendments to deal with that, but perhaps he will change his mind. Changing their minds seems to be something that the Government do as regularly as they change their underpants—or, looking at some of them, perhaps even more regularly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The 20 per cent. minimum payment should certainly be removed. If not, some of the exemptions in the poll tax legislation will be removed. Some people who were exempt will now have to pay extra VAT. Some of them may be able to afford to pay more. For some peculiar reason, the overseas forces do not pay the poll tax but will have to pay the extra VAT. Diplomats, who could presumably afford it, do not pay the poll tax and nor do people in prison, unless they are in prison for non-payment of the poll tax.
Some groups of people deserve to be exempt from the poll tax but will have to pay the extra VAT. They include groups such as tramps and vagrants, who presumably sometimes spend money on VAT-rated goods. The Government finally agreed to make monks and nuns exempt, on the grounds that they took vows of poverty. Some may take vows of poverty but others have poverty thrust upon them, especially by the actions of the Government. The same principle that applied to monks and nuns should have applied to other groups.
One group worthy of consideration is the severely mentally handicapped. They are excluded from the poll tax but will pay full VAT. Apart from monks and nuns, the groups that I have mentioned were excluded because they were also excluded from electoral registration. The quaint principle of accountability is the fault in the measure which

led to the anomaly. The severely physically handicapped, who might be in as poor circumstances as the severely mentally handicapped, need as much money and resources spent on them and as much assistance. Therefore, they have good grounds of hardship and need for social provision to be exempted. Yet they are not excluded, although the severely mentally handicapped are. The difference is in relation to electoral registration.
Yet the severely mentally handicapped will still be first to pay not only the VAT but, when we move towards the new legislation, presumably the new property tax. We do not know whether the new poll tax amount will be based on the principles of the existing poll tax or whether son of poll tax will be based on a fresh provision and the severely mentally handicapped will come within the exemptions in that legislation.

Mr. Maxton: If a physically handicapped person lives in his own house and tries to look after himself, he has to pay the poll tax, but if he is in a long-stay hospital or home he does not have to pay it.

Mr. Barnes: In addition to that, severely handicapped people have to pay the full VAT. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle that problem, so we are bound to he concerned lest those who were not paying anything previously are called on to pay under the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend described monks and nuns as deserving cases who are exempt from paying the poll tax. Considering that they vote and use local authority services, why are they exempted?

Mr. Barnes: Various categories of people were added as the poll tax legislation proceeded through Parliament. The lobby in favour of monks and nuns pointed out that they took vows of poverty and should be excluded. The exemption crept in and cut across the principle that it had to be related to the electoral register. An interesting piece of legislation, the Caldey Island Act 1990, linked the electoral register and the poll tax register. It was discovered that on Caldey island there were monks and fishermen who were not on the electoral register. Many of them were not on the poll tax register either, so a special measure had to be introduced to sort matters out.
I recall that the Minister missed the boat one evening when the Caldey Island Bill, as it then was, came before the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: He failed to turn up?

Mr. Barnes: He missed the boat, although it was probably outside the door.

Mr. Tony Banks: Another bit of monkey business.

Mr. Barnes: There are increasing indications, from the Home Office circulars, remarks by electoral registration officers, the Caldey Island Act and other measures, that there is an intricate link between electoral registration and poll tax, and it must go.
Scottish Ministers say, "All must pay the poll tax," while Welsh and English Ministers say, "Most must pay the poll tax." They must get that sorted out. Only when we get rid of the principle on which the poll tax is based shall we overcome some of the many social problems of which my hon. Friends have spoken.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I never cease to wonder at


the chirpiness of debates at this time of night, particularly the chirpiness of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It is a pleasure to have him with us at this late hour. It is also a pleasure for me to be in the company again of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). About 14 hours ago, he and I were debating upstairs a rating issue which had everything to do with double counting. In a sense, we are also discussing a problem of double counting here.
The hon. Member for Normanton opened by saying that he was interested in extending the fairness and equality of the system. I am a bit puzzled by his suggestion that the amendments level up the English position to that in Wales. The amendments would mean that the £140 reduction would apply not to the headline charge but to the amount of liability of the charge payer. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has just explained, the £140 reduction in Wales applies to the headline charge, just as it does in England.
I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West understands the amendments and asked who would benefit from the reduction that we have introduced. We have always made it clear that charges everywhere will be reduced by £140, except where the original charge set is less than £140, as in Wandsworth, where the charge will be reduced to zero. The charge set by the authority is being reduced, and where a charge payer pays that charge, the amount that he pays will be reduced by £140. Where a charge payer pays only a proportion of that charge, the reduction in the amount that he pays will be a proportion of £140. It is a complete misrepresentation to present that system as meaning that those charge payers are losing out.

Mr. Harry Barnes: They lose out compared with people who already gain under the poll tax. In Derbyshire, some people have gained considerable amounts of money. The authority has been poll tax capped, so they have gained another £55, and now they are to gain another £140. Some people are doing very well, but those at the other end are doing desperately badly.

Mr. Key: I suppose that that partly explains the problem that Members such as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have with any income tax cuts, because the same is true there. The more someone earns, the more income tax he pays, and the more he benefits from any reduction. I accept that point—it depends which end of the telescope one looks through.

Mr. Battle: rose——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Key: I must get on, because I must answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, and I shall certainly not give way to an hon. Member who has not bothered to be here for the debate.
The amendments' purpose is to provide that the reduction of £140 in the community charge effected by the Bill is made, not from the headline charge, as the Government intend, but from the liability of each charge payer, after relief under the community charge reduction scheme and community charge benefit has been calculated. The net result would be that a substantial number of charge payers would pay nothing in 1991–92.
The Bill's purpose is to reduce headline charges. It follows from our decision to shift a substantial part of the burden currently borne by the community charge payer to the national taxpayer. It is not the Bill's aim to ensure that all charge payers should pay £140 less than would otherwise have been the case. The Bill provides generous relief. Under the community charge reduction scheme we have provided relief for former ratepayers who had been especially affected by the move to the community charge. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities announced substantial improvements to the scheme. For those charge payers on low incomes we have also provided community charge benefit. It is perfectly reasonable that eligibility for relief under the reduction scheme and for benefit should be calculated after, not before, the deduction of £140.

Mr. Banks: I have one simple question at eight minutes past two in the morning: who is paying for the services that are being received by the people of Wandsworth? It clearly is not the people of Wandsworth.

Mr. Key: It is being paid for by taxpayers, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, my constituents and, above all, the residents of Wandsworth who, over many years, have invested in their local government services.
The amendment would exempt not just 20 per centers, as they have been called, but many more people who fall into a category above that benefit. The important factor is that, in the past, we have taken too much taxation locally, and we are now redressing the balance. As we have said, our aim is to achieve average charges of about £175.
The amendment is not justified. The Bill, with the community charge reduction scheme and community charge benefit, form a generous and substantial package which will reduce the average charge payable next year to less than £175. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: I asked the Minister to bring about equality between poll tax payers in the Principality of Wales and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that a person in Wales who receives the benefit of the community charge reduction scheme could also receive transitional benefit and the £140 relief. If people in the English counties and the metropolitan areas receive the benefit of the community charge reduction scheme and transitional relief, why should they not also have the benefit of the £140? The bottom line would be the same.
The Minister has not convinced anyone that there should not be special consideraton for people who pay 20 per cent. of the charge. People who deserve the largest slice of the £4·5 billion will not get it, and the amendment seeks to rectify that. The people who should benefit most from that money are those who are on income support. The Minister did not address that, and I ask him to reconsider. Instead of appealing to the Committee to reject the amendment, he should tell his hon. Friends to support it, because it would benefit people on low incomes. They should be given fair and full consideration.

Amendment negatived

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after 'personal', insert 'or standard'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 3, in page, 1, line 10, after `personal', insert 'or standard'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 20, after 'personal', insert 'or standard'.
No. 6, in clause 3, page 3. line 15, after 'personal', insert `or standard'.
No. 7, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, after 'personal', insert `or standard'.
No. 8, in clause 3, page 3, line 22, after 'personal', insert `or standard'.
No. 10, in clause 3, page 4, line 4, after 'personal', insert 'or standard'.

Mr. Beith: I shall be brief, because, in answers to questions that I put to him, the Secretary of State seemed to dispose of the matters that I sought to clarify by tabling this amendment. If the Minister can answer yes to my questions, we can quickly get rid of this group of amendments and move to the next one. I tabled these amendments to establish whether standard community charge will be reduced by £140. Secondly, will multiple standard community charge be reduced by the appropriate multiple of £140? Thirdly, will local authorities be fully reimbursed whether for a single or a multiple charge? The Secretary of State's reply to the last question was, "That is correct." What is the answer now to those questions?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved this amendment, because his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) in the debate on an earlier amendment argued against giving standard community charge payers the reduction. Plainly, the Liberal Democrats need to get their act together.
I confirm that the answer to the first and second questions posed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is yes. The third question does not apply, because in giving authorities the grant in the first place, no account was taken of standard community charge payers. That was a bonus.

Mr. Beith: Local authorities will find themselves with considerably less money than they thought they had. For example, the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed will have over £200,000 less than it thought it would have. Some other authorities with many second homes in their areas will suddenly find that, because of the reduction in the charges, they will have a great deal less money to meet the cost of services at a time when they can no longer increase their charge to compensate. Will the Minister explain what they are supposed to do?

Mr. Bennett: We did not include in the standard spending assessment the fact that they would have the advantage of charging up the two multipliers on the standard community charge.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not resolved the problem. Local authorities cannot now change their budgets. They are obliged to stick to the level of charge minus the amount by which the Bill will reduce it. They cannot now take account of the fact that they will have £250,000 less than they expected. Therefore, the Bill creates a difficulty that it cannot resolve. The Minister has given an answer that is different from that given by the

Secretary of State. I asked him whether authorities would be reimbursed, and he said that that was correct. The Minister has one last opportunity to clear up the matter.

Mr. Bennett: They will be reimbursed. The point is that the SSA that was originally calculated included the fact that authorities would get a bonus from the standard community charge multiplier, but they will be reimbursed, so they get it doubly.

Mr. Beith: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page line 1, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) Where the reduction has taken place by virtue of this section, a charging authority shall have the discretion to issue no demands if, in its judgment, the total amount to be collected from the charge payers as a whole is likely to be exceeded by the cost of collecting the charge.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 3, line 24, at end
insert—
'(2A) Where the reduction has taken place by virtue of this section, a local authority shall have the discretion to issue no demands if, in its judgment, the total amount to be collected from the charge payers as a whole is likely to be exceeded by the cost of collecting the charge.'.

Mr. Beith: The amendments are intended to make it possible for a local authority to avoid being obliged to issue a community charge demand, even though the amount of money raised by doing so would be less than the cost of collecting it. Because of the circumstances of the Bill, the local authority has no discretion. If the authority had found that, because of the favourable grant, it needed to raise only £2, £3, £10 or £12 by way of poll tax, then it would probably have decided not to levy a poll tax at all. Some authorities will be levying very small poll taxes because of the Bill. A number of authorities, including Westminster, have come to the conclusion that it will cost them more to collect the money than they would obtain from collection. It cannot make sense to waste money in that way, and the Government cannot be encouraging them to do so.
The purpose of the amendments is to avoid such waste.In our debate on the money resolution last night, the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who is so fond of the poll tax, argued that local authorities could ask the district auditor what he thought about this, and if he said, "It's all right, don't worry, I shan't trouble you," they could avoid collecting the amounts involved. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to proceed. The Minister has tipped the wink, the district auditor has given a nod, and the authority does not have to send out the bills.
In a world in which local authorities have found themselves plunged into illegality when they conscientiously engaged in swap deals, one cannot tell local authority treasurers, "Don't worry, you won't get into trouble, I have had a word with the district auditor and he has promised that he will not take you to court." That is not a reasonable basis on which to proceed. Surely Ministers do not want the collection machinery set into motion when less will be raised than the cost of the collection.
Ministers are apt to say that the cost of collection is only the cost of sending the bills out—that is, the printing, postage and stamp time involved in the distribution of the bills. That is not so. A local authority cannot send out a series of bills without thereby committing itself to using its best efforts to get the money in. That means going beyond the first bill, to the reminder, and right along the road to the bailiffs and court proceedings. The Minister would be the first to admit that it would be an irresponsible local authority which issued a bill without intending to secure payment of that bill by using the powers at its disposal. Ministers would strongly criticise any local authority which sent out bills without any serious intention of collecting the money.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, unless he can show that there is some other, absolutely clear way in which a local authority, in good faith, judging that the amount to be collected is less than the cost of collecting, can avoid sending out bills.

Mr. Key: One of the problems is the wide variation in efficiency of collection by local authorities. If all local authorities were equally efficient at collection, we should be in a different ball game, but there is a huge variation. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), was right last night when speaking to the money resolution to point out the importance of the auditor. The issue cannot be ducked. If a local authority honestly believes that it would be more expensive to go ahead and collect, it is absolutely right if it decides to approach the auditor to find out whether he agrees, but there are also other ways of approaching the problem.
The amendments are designed to ensure that, when an authority reduces its charges by virtue of the requirements of the Bill, it need not issue charge bills for the residual amounts, if it considers that the cost of collecting them is likely to be greater than the yield of the reduced charges. The amendments are unnecessary. The existing legislation already permits an authority to achieve what they seek. Incidentally, the amendments could also lead to a deficit in an authority's collection fund, which would create a serious problem.
If an authority's charges, after allowing for the reduction required by the Bill, were comparitively small—possibly only a few pounds—it might consider that it was not worth collecting the amounts concerned, thereby saving it the administrative expense of so doing. The correct course then for the authority would not be not to issue bills for the reduced amount, as the amendments propose. That would run the risk of creating a deficit in the collection fund, since estimated income and outgoings would be out of kilter. What such an authority could do would be to reduce its charges to £140 by making an appropriate reduction in its budget—that is, its demand on the collection fund—and then setting substitute charges under section 35 of the Local Government Act 1988, thus passing on the reduction. The provisions of the Bill would then bite by reducing those charges to zero. If one wished to reset the budget downwards, it would simply be a question of giving seven days' notice, having a full council meeting and passing a single resolution. It is not a lengthy affair. That is another reason why I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Beith: The Minister made great play of the deficit in the collection account. I am worried about the deficit in the collection account that will occur if a local authority attempts to collect a charge which yields less than the cost of collecting it. The Minister has set out alternatives. I am not very happy about the idea of a quiet word with the district auditor. It puts local authorities in precisely the position in which they found themselves over swap deals. Which district auditor warned local authorities that they could not safely engage in swap deals without risking the whole system becoming unstitched in the courts which, as the Minister knows full well, it clearly did? The only alternative is that which he has set out—in the few days now available immediately to call a meeting to reduce the charge to £140 and thereby get down to zero.
If a local authority takes that course, I hope that it will not then be criticised by Ministers for delaying the issue of bills. It is an extraordinary fact that local authorities cannot move without being subjected to criticism. On the understanding, nevertheless, that that is a course which they can reasonably take, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall within one month of the relevant day lay before Parliament his estimate of the number of persons for whom the actual level of payment for which they are liable in respect of the personal community charge in the 1991 financial year will not be reduced by £140 from the actual payment for which they were liable before the relevant day.'.
We have heard statements about those who will be eligible for the £140 reduction in their poll tax bills due to the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax. There are substantial differences in the numbers of people we are told will receive the benefit. Amendment No. 20 would help to clear up the confusion.
We are asking that the number of people whose poll tax will not be reduced by £140 in the financial year 1991–92 be stated. If those people who are in most urgent need of assistance are to be helped, information of this kind ought to be available. The purpose of our constructive amendment is to improve the Bill in that way. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Portillo: I do not think that there is any need to amend the Bill in order that this information might be made available. It is always open to hon. Members to seek information in all sorts of ways.
As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) knows, the £.140 comes off the headline community charge figure. If people get less than £140, it will be because they are receiving some other type of help. They may benefit from community charge reduction and thereby pay little more than the amount of their rates bill; or they may be on benefit, in which case they pay perhaps only one fifth, or some larger fraction, of the community charge; or they may be students, in which case they pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge in any case. People may already receive help for any one of those reasons. Those who pay the full charge will get a reduction of £140, and others will get a reduction of less than £140 in what their bills would have been. In the latter case, the figure is less than £140 only because such people already get help in another way against the full charge.
I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman by telling him what the figures are likely to be. We estimate that, as a result of this Bill, 13 million charge payers in England will pay £140 less than they expected to pay. The remaining 22·5 million will also pay less, but the amount of their reduction, on account of the Bill on its own, will be lower than £140. As I have said, the figure will depend on entitlement to relief under the community charge reduction scheme and benefit.
As has been said, 16 million people will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. Of those, about eight million are brought into the scheme as a result of yesterday's announcement. In Scotland, about 2·5 million people will get a reduction of £140. About 1·25 million will get less than that. Of those, 600,000 are on the community charge reduction scheme. In Wales, where the reduction scheme operates on a different basis, the £140 will be received by everyone, except students and those who are on benefit. That comes to almost 600,000, out of the 2·14 million community charge payers in Wales.
I hope that that information is helpful to the Committee. It certainly obviates any need to amend the Bill.

Mr. Blunkett: We should point out to the Minister that the statement that he made on Monday evening in the debate on the money resolution has caused havoc to local authority administration, computer software and billing proposals. The Government cannot have realised, and certainly the Department of the Environment did not advise them of, the enormity of the changes in what appeared to be a small and inconsequential announcement late on a Monday evening. The results of that could be as large as the difficulties facing local authorities in the process of reassessing and re-billing people under the Bill that we are debating tonight.
Because the figure of 8 million, 16 million, once upon a time 18 million, people who were supposed to be entitled to rebates under the community charge reduction scheme is now in such doubt, it is important that, even at this late hour, as we reach 2.30 am and come, like Cinderella, to the point where the coach turns back into a pumpkin and the white horses turn back into mice—an appropriate analogy——

It being half-past Two o'clock, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Qustion already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be included.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to the Order yesterday, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at to-morrow's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Message relating to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill which may be received shall have been disposed of.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Baltic States

Motion made,and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The debate arises at an appropriate time, although, judging from the exit of various hon. Members, they are not prepared to listen to the problems of the Baltic states.
This is not the first time that I have applied for such an Adjournment debate, but I use the word "appropriate" because it follows hard upon the heels of a visit paid by the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and myself to the Baltic states between 10 and 15 March. Both those hon. Members hope to intervene briefly before the Minister replies.
All three of us would like to place on record our gratitude to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the way in which it facilitated our visit, and we hope to give an extensive briefing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the results of our visit and fact-finding mission.
We would also like to place on record our thanks to our hosts in Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn. We all found the visit extremely informative and we were impressed by the fortitude and determination of the people we met there. We were also made acutely aware of the oppression which exists in the three states—physical oppression which we could witness through the presence of tanks and Soviet troops, the economic pressure under which many people exist, and the hidden, but perhaps more insidious, pressures being exerted on those fragile democracies by their larger neighbour, the Soviet Union.
My viewpoint and that of my party is that the west should have no hesitation in recognising the three states as independent in their own right. After all, we never did recognise the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement of 1940 and now we should recognise de facto the decisions being taken by the peoples of those states to declare themselves independent nations.
I want to make six points, all of which arise from our findings on our visit, and all of which are intended to encourage President Gorbachev and other representatives of the Soviet Union to come to the negotiating table and, during that process, to assist the people of those three states in a practical way.
If it is not possible for the British Government—or, indeed, other western Governments—to grant immediate official recognition to the three states, the west should make a clear statement that the Soviet Union is placing obstacles in the way of the Baltic states' work towards independence, and that that contravenes the rights of nations to self-determination under international law.
The Minister will be aware of the "Charter of Paris for a New Europe", completed in November 1990. Page 1 clearly spells out that
Democratic government is based on the will of the people, expressed regularly through free and fair elections. Democracy has as its foundation respect for the human person and the rule of law.
By any democratic yardstick, the people of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have expressed their clear wish to be recognised as independent nations within the community of the world.
The issue should be taken into the international community, given our respect for international law. There


are facilities for the Government, through the various international forums, to ensure that the future of the Baltic states is placed firmly on the international agenda. We should also state clearly that technical aid and economic credits are conditional on the Soviet Union's willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiation with the elected Governments of the Baltic republics.
During our visit, it was made clear to us that many people believed that further bloodshed would have occurred following the killings in Vilnius and Riga had the European Community not expressed its willingness to withdraw technical aid at that stage. That willingness should be reiterated. Surely none of us would tolerate circumstances in which people were threatened, and their lives taken, because of their beliefs in their country and their right to have their own Government.
Thirdly, I believe that the states would be helped by the establishment of reciprocal information centres to promote trade and cultural links. That was emphasised by all the members we met. It is clear that the legal status of such centres could be variable, but they could eventually adopt full diplomatic status at the appropriate stage. It would mean a great deal to the three countries if such centres were established.
Fourthly, an attempt is now being made, under the auspices of the Nordic Council, to hold an international conference to deal specifically with the issue of the Baltic states. It is, after all, one of the unresolved questions of the last world war, and such a conference would be extremely helpful. It has been suggested that it should be a parliamentary rather than a governmental conference, but I hope that the British Government will look favourably on the idea. The conference could provide a framework for dialogue between the Baltic states and the Soviet Union, with Denmark and Iceland in particular cast in the role of mediators.
Fifthly, there is the question of practical assistance to the states. That should cover such questions as how we can assist educational institutions such as universities and colleges, how we can help the people to build up a knowledge of legal systems and human rights, how we can help them to build up trade and commerce, to establish communications with the outside world and, indeed, to arrange exchange visits with our Parliament. Many people there want to come here, meet hon. Members and discuss how we operate and what advice we can offer.
It is important that some of the know-how funds established by the Government for the emerging eastern and central European democracies should be earmarked for the Baltic states. We met representatives of all the political parties in the three countries. We must remember that they are talking about what they have called a black hole of democracy. The political parties have to educate people to understand the meaning of differences between political parties and how important it is to exercise a democratic vote. The earmarking of some of the funds would do a great deal to assist those very brave politicians who are trying so hard to establish democracy against a background of overwhelming threat from the Soviet Union.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to some of my comments. There is a great deal more about which we, as the representatives of Parliament

who visited the Baltic states, can talk. However, an Adjournment debate does not give us sufficient time to do so.

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) have the consent of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of the Minister?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): indicated assent.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: I endorse the analysis of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who I accompanied with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to the Baltic republics, and her suggestions. We were greatly impressed by the enormous sense of the indomitable human spirit that one encounters in the three countries. After 50 years of apparently overwhelming propaganda and the most brutal repression, the determination of the countries to achieve their national independence again, and their pride and patriotism, have been utterly unextinguished and undimmed. We were also impressed by the tremendous human courage displayed by the people in the three countries, especially in Lithuania during the events in January, when the people literally interposed their bodies between Soviet tanks and their Parliament, which is the symbol of their re-emergent democracy.
I know that the Government remain hopeful that Mr. Gorbachev and the Kremlin leadership will begin to negotiate with the republics on moves towards genuine independence. For a host of reasons into which I will not go now, I have little confidence that there is much prospect of such meaningful negotiation beginning in the forseeable future. However, in those circumstances, the right policy is for the Government, by gradual measures, to encourage the three states to expand the area of their de facto independence so that there is a general sense of inexorable movement in the direction that all of us must feel is right.

Mr. Paul Flynn: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) have the consent of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of the Minister?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: indicated assent.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: indicated assent.

Mr. Flynn: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). The story from the visit which haunts me is the one that was told to us by one of the Members of Parliament in Lithuania about her aged parents. She explained to us why she felt so strongly. Like many other people we met there, her parents had spent time in the gulags. They had been robbed of their childhood. When the coup d'etat, which failed, took place in Vilnius, the mother told the father, "This time you must go down. If anyone should die, it should be old people such as you. We need our young people to build the new,


free Lithuania." The picture of that frail 70-year-old man challenging the brute force of the tanks with his stick is powerful.
We saw the free, democratically elected Parliaments. There was an affront to all our values because the Parliaments operate behind brick walls, barricades and armed guards. The threat to them is the alien forces of panzer communism. Sadly, we must now take the view from the news even today that glasnost is in its twilight. We must also acknowledge that the situation in the three countries is not stable.
There is likely to be conflict, and we must look to our own history, to our links with those countries and to the feelings that those countries have towards ours, and we must remember the 50 terrible years in which the flower of the nation has been abused, deported and killed in great numbers and in which the worst of the nation have been elevated to privileged positions. Their language has been degraded, but, despite that, the spirit of those three small nations has survived and is enjoying a new spring. It is possible, however, that that spirit could be trampled down again by the forces of Moscow.
I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Members for Moray and for Stamford and Spalding. When that conflict comes, we must ensure that we have established links at every level that, if possible, bypasses Moscow. We should establish links on a parliamentary level but also on a non-governmental level which incorporate voluntary and religious groups. We must ensure that those links with the Baltic states are direct. When the new conflict arises, there is no way in which this country and Parliament can remain neutral.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Despite the lateness of the hour, I am glad that the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) have raised the question of the Baltic states. I am also grateful to the kind words of the hon. Lady on the briefing and assistance that she received from the Foreign Office—I shall ensure that officials are aware of those kind words.
I should like to take advantage of the debate to outline in general terms the Government's policy towards the Baltic states, as well as to respond to the specific questions that have been posed. It would be helpful if I summarised the Government's policy towards those states and our policy towards the Soviet Union's own policy to the Baltic states.
I should make it clear that the United Kingdom Government have never accepted the legality of the incorporation of the three Baltic states into the Soviet Union. As the hon. Lady said, that was a clear act of aggression, and the three republics were sovereign, independent states at the time of their incorporation.
Although we never recognised as lawful the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the Union, one must accept as a matter of de facto law that the republics are part of the Soviet Union. Although we have recognised that fact, we also assert their right to self-determination. But, if we are realistic about this, we must accept that the right to self-determination can only be effectively achieved

through genuine and free negotiation between the Soviet Union and the republics. The outcome will necessarily depend upon those negotiations.
The outcome may be full independence, or some form of autonomy that falls short of that. It is not for us to prescribe or seek to prescribe the outcome of those negotiations. Out interest and duty is to try to secure free and bona fide negotiations between the Soviet Union and the republics. Their purpose must be to try to devise a genuine, consensual and long-lasting solution to the problems that the hon. Lady has outlined.
For about two years up to January 1991, there were grounds for optimism. Genuine elections were held, representative bodies were established, real political freedoms came into existence and there was a real measure of political independence. Then came the killings in January in Latvia and Lithuania, a truly shocking event which the world, the European Community and the United Kingdom in particular rightly condemned in clear language. Those killings threatened to put into reverse much of the improvement that had been secured in east-west relations during the past five years or so.
Perhaps as a result of the condemnations and criticisms which I have just described, the Soviets held back from any continued force. The hon. Lady was kind enough to suggest that it may have been as a result of the action taken by the world community. In any event, the position has achieved a certain rather menacing stability: elected leaders in the Baltic republics are still in power; the bloodshed in Latvia and Lithuania was not repeated in Estonia; and there is some evidence, although not as much as we would like, that the Russians are seeking negotiations.

Mrs. Ewing: I wish that I could share the hon. and learned Gentleman's optimism about the idea that there is evidence that the Soviet Union will enter into negotiations. We found that attempts were being made by all three Parliaments, Presidents and Prime Ministers to open up negotiations. Organisations have been established. Yet time and time again, the Soviet Union has refused to come to the negotiating table. Does he have any evidence to the contrary?

Mr. Hogg: That is why I expressed my remarks in the way I did. I said that there was some evidence, but I went on to say that it was not very persuasive.
There is some evidence—for example, the remarks that President Gorbachev has made from time to time about his willingness to enter into negotiations and also the appointment of the delegations. However, I am not trying to persuade the Chamber that it is very persuasive evidence, and that is why I qualified my remarks.
To summarise the position thus far, our policy is, first, to press the Soviet Government to enter into genuine negotiations with the three Baltic republics with a view to achieving a genuine, consensual, long-term solution to their claims for political self-determination; and secondly, to make it plain to the Soviet Union that, if there is any recurrence of the military policy action that took place in Latvia and Lithuania earlier this year, it will automatically bring into major question any further improvement of the relations between the Soviet Union and the west. Indeed, I do not see how the Soviet Union could look to the west for any sort of assistance in the event of such action taking place.
Thirdly, we must try to build up the links and connections that can be developed between the United Kingdom and the Baltic republics. I shall give some examples. Clearly, the visit paid by the three hon. Members who are now in the Chamber is one. That was extremely welcome. We are trying to expand contacts. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw representatives of the Baltic republics when he visited Moscow earlier this month. I have seen the Foreign Ministers of the three Baltic republics since I have been in office—in November last year. The British embassy in Moscow has been building up a fairly extensive programme of visits to the Baltic republics. As the hon. Lady may know, the British Council is hoping to establish an English language training centre in Tallinn. There are other examples of these improving contacts that we should like to develop.
The first specific question that the hon. Lady asked was whether one should use the prospect of economic technical assistance from the European Community as a method of ensuring that the Soviet Union enters into negotiations with the Baltic republics. If the Soviet Union were to use force against the Baltic republics, it is incredible to suppose that the European Community programme would survive. In other words, the use of force would cost the Soviet Union the technical aid programme that is available under the EC scheme.
However, it would not be sensible to use the existence of the EC scheme as a lever to bring the Soviet Union into negotiations with the Baltic republics—for two reasons. First, I doubt whether it would be successful. Secondly, there are free-standing reasons that justify the aid programme. After all, it spreads right across the Soviet Union and brings real benefits to its people. It would not be sensible or desirable from the point of view of the Soviet Union broadly defined to withhold that aid merely because it had not entered into negotiations. The policy is to persuade the Soviet Government to enter into negotiations, but we shall not withhold the EC programme as a sanction if they do not. However, we would use it as a sanction if they used military force in the Baltic republics, but one would have to carry one's EC colleagues with one on that.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of a Nordic conference. I must confess that I cannot help the hon. Lady on this because, although I have made earnest and

searching inquiries about the Nordic conference, truth to tell, I can find no evidence that there is about to be one. That may be my fault, but I cannot; that being so, I cannot give the commitments for which the hon. Lady has asked. I am sorry not to be of greater assistance in that regard.
I can be more forthcoming about the information centres. The United Kingdom Government have no plans to open information centres in the Baltic republics although, as I have said, we do have plans to extend our contacts. On the other hand, the Baltic republics themselves are extremely welcome to open information centres in the United Kingdom if that is what they wish—although, clearly, such centres would not have any diplomatic status—and my understanding is that they wish to do so.
There has not been any substantial dispersement of the know-how funds to the Soviet Union. Disbursements are likely to begin after 1 April this year, and it is probable that there will be significant projects from the Baltic republics. We would very much welcome that. However, that is not to say that a specific sum is earmarked for the Baltic republics, but I should be extremely disappointed if substantial portions of the funds available did not go to projects emanating from the Baltic republics. Although I do not think that it was under the auspices of the know-how fund, some work has already been done on, for example, port privatisations in Estonia, and developments of small farm agriculture in Latvia and Lithuania.
The hon. Lady also referred to wider and broader contacts being made with the Baltic republics by the United Kingdom and various of our institutions and organisations. I strongly endorse and support what the hon. Lady said. She made a valuable suggestion, and we shall endeavour to find ways of deepening the relationship. I have already mentioned some of the things that we have done and which we shall continue, such as establishing parliamentary, educational, cultural and commercial contacts. They all build a relationship, which is important not only in terms of the relationship itself, but in improving security for the Baltic republics. The hon. Lady's suggestion is to be adopted and applauded.
I hope that I have covered all the points made in the debate. Finally, I should like to thank the hon. Lady once again for raising this important subject. It is our joint misfortune that it should now be 2.59 in the morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.